Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Bridport Joint Hospital District) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Luton) Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Matlock) Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

South East Cornwall Water Board Bill,

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS (BRITISH CONTRIBUTION).

Mr. DAY: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the British Government's contribution to the general expenses of the League of Nations for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date; and will he give comparable figures for the previous 12 months?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): As the answer involves a tabular statement, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. DAY: Is the contribution of the British Government higher than it would have been had not so many other nations defaulted in their contributions?

Mr. EDEN: That is another question.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Will the figures include the present cost of sanctions?

Mr. EDEN: No, Sir.

Following is the statement:


—
Year ended December 31st, 1934.
Year ended December 31st, 1935.



Gold Frances.
Gold Francs.


Charged to the Vote for the League of Nations.
2,258,429.95
2,198,172.35


Charged to the Ministry of Labour Vote (in respect of the International Labour Organisation).
936,949.65
982,764.60



3,195,379.60
3,180,936.95



=£207,215
=£212,118

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA AND CZECHOSLOVAKIA.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information of the arrangement between Russia and Czechoslovakia for the use by the former country of aerodromes in the territory of the latter for military purposes?

Mr. EDEN: The Czechoslovak Government have given His Majesty's Representative at Prague a categorical assurance that no such arrangement exists.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCE (FRONTIER FORTIFICA TIONS).

Sir P. HARRIS: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information with regard to the proposed revision of the treaty obligation prohibiting fortifications on the French side of the Swiss frontier; and whether this matter will be brought before the League of Nations?

Mr. EDEN: I have no information with regard to any such proposed revision.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN SITUATION.

Mr. EMRYS-EVANS: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give an account of the efforts which, since the breakdown of the Disarmament Conference, have been made to reach a general political settlement in Europe and, in particular, of any discussions in which His Majesty's


Government have taken part regarding the negotiation of the Franco-Soviet Pact?

Mr. EDEN: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion. It is my intention to make available to hon. Members as soon as possible, in the form of a White Paper, a comprehensive collection of documents dealing with the matters to which he refers.

Oral Answers to Questions — OUTER MONGOLIA (RUSSIAN TROOPS).

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs approximately the number of Soviet troops, including airmen, in Outer Mongolia?

Mr. EDEN: I regret that I have no information on this subject.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is it understood that there are not any Soviet troops in Outer Mongolia?

Mr. EDEN: I am afraid I have no information on that point.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is not Outer Mongolia part of the Republic of China, and would it not be possible to find out from our Ambassador in China?

Mr. EDEN: It is under Chinese suzerainty.

Mr. LAWSON: Will the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) tell us which is the outer part of Mongolia?

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALY, AUSTRIA AND HUNGARY.

Mr. DAY: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement with reference to the political agreement which has been reached between Italy, Austria, and Hungary?

Mr. EDEN: I have received from His Majesty's Ambassador at Rome the text of Protocols which were signed at Rome between the Italian, Austrian and Hungarian Governments on 23rd March. The text of these documents has been published in to-day's Press.

Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when the agreement is to begin?

Mr. THORNE: Are the agreements in question military agreements?

Mr. EDEN: I have no information beyond what has appeared in the Press, and what I have stated.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY AND LOCARNO TREATY.

Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further statement to make on the situation resulting from the unilateral repudiation by Germany of the Locarno Treaty and from the entry of German forces into the demilitarised zone?

Mr. EDEN: I understand that a debate on this subject will take place very shortly, and perhaps my hon. Friend will be good enough to await it.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

FUEL OIL.

Mr. DONNER: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what quantity of oil is on an average consumed annually by the Home Fleet; what quantity of oil is at present being stored in the United Kingdom; and what additional storage facilities exist which are at present not being fully used?

The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): I regret that the information asked for is not for publication.

SABOTAGE.

Mr. DONNER: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the many successful attempts to damage wilfully ships of the Royal Navy, he will consider taking the necessary steps to amend the Malicious Damage to Property Act, 1861, so as to increase the inadequate penalties under Section 46 of that Act, in order to deter further attempts of sabotage by prolonging the period of imprisonment, at present limited to seven years for such action?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I am not aware of any ground for thinking that the persons responsible for such damage as has occurred have been in any way influenced by a feeling that the existing penalties may be lightly regarded, or that a person who is willing to risk a sentence of seven


years' penal servitude would be deterred by an increase in the maximum penalty which may be imposed.

Mr. DONNER: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that no further steps should be taken to deter people in view of the many successful attempts that have already taken place?

Mr. LLOYD: I can assure my hon. Friend that there are severer penalties than seven years under other Acts.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA.

TAXATION.

Mr. BANFIELD: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, with a view to relieving the financial position in Kenya Colony and obviating the need for the further raising of loans in this country to support the industries of the settlers, he will take steps to give effect to the speech of the Governor last September, in which he reiterated his view that Income Tax was the only solution for the taxation controversies?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. J. H. Thomas): The question of the system of taxation in Kenya is one of the matters on which Sir Alan Pim will report: and until his report has been received and considered I cannot express any opinion.

TIGONI AREA.

Mr. T. SMITH (for Mr. PALING): asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received any communication from the Governor of Kenya Colony on the removal of the inhabitants of the Tigoni area from their ancestral lands?

Mr. THOMAS: I have now received the Governor's observations, and they are being considered.

Mr. DONNER: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there is any evidence at all to show that these lands are ancestral?

Mr. THOMAS: As I have said, the Governor has sent in a report which is under examination.

IMPERIAL AIRWAYS, LIMITED (PEROL SUPPLY).

Captain DOWER: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air in view of the

coroner's findings in the "City of Khartoum" air disaster, what steps, if any, he proposes to take to see that Imperial Airways provides sufficient margin of petrol to meet possible eventualities?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) on the 11th instant.

Captain DOWER: Did not the findings state quite clearly that there was no petrol in the machine at the time and that the margin of fuel allowed was insufficient and will my right hon. Friend take all possible precautions to see that the safeguards he has suggested shall be introduced in order to prevent any disaster of this kind in the future?

Sir P. SASSOON: As I have said extra tankage capacity is to be given to air liners of this type at present operating in the Mediterranean which is expected to give them a sufficient margin of safety.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

RATIONS.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction among many Air Force mechanics over the food supplied; and how the ration allowance of about 9d. per day is expended?

Sir P. SASSOON: I am not aware of any general dissatisfaction. Commanding officers have instructions to report to the Air Ministry any representations made by airmen's messing committees (which exist at all stations) if they cannot be satisfactorily settled locally. The present daily cost of the ration is about 9¾d. It is periodically re-assessed. Some items such as meat and bread are supplied in kind, the balance of the cash value of the ration being available for purchases locally through the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes at the discretion of the messing officer.

Mr. J. J. DAVIDSON: Will the amount of the daily ration allowance, 9¾., be stated on the recruiting posters?

Sir P. SASSOON: it is an allowance which has been in existence for a very long time.

PAY.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the difference between the wages of Grade II tradesmen who have done eight months training at Uxbridge and 18 months service at, Henlow, and the wages of those similar employés who have had three years at Halton, about two to three years in a squadron, and then 12 months on their course?

Sir P. SASSOON: The rates of pay depend on degree of trade skill and on length of service. The pay of a flight mechanic (Group II), if passing out of training as an aircraftman, 1st class, is 28s. a week, while that of a Grade I fitter, qualifying as such with three years' service as leading aircraftman, is 42s. a week, in addition, in each case, to free accommodation, rations and clothing or allowances in lieu, good conduct badge pay of 1s. 9d. a week after three years' service, and, at age 26, marriage allowance if married.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that leading aircraftmen who have passed a trade test receive only 38s. 6d. per week, and owing to the slowness of movement have small opportunity of being promoted for six or seven years or more; and whether, to retain and engage good men, it is possible, especially in these days of increased expenditure on the Air Force, to improve the chances of promotion among these employés?

Sir P. SASSOON: The rate of pay quoted is the initial rate issuable to an airman on qualifying for the classification of leading aircraftman in a Group I trade, and it is increased to 42s. a week after three years. Free accommodation, rations and clothing, or allowances in lieu, are provided in addition, and the airman is eligible for good conduct badge pay of 1s. 9d. a week after three years' service, and, at age 26, marriage allowance, if married. The arrangements are designed to ensure that airmen receive advancement when their experience renders them suitable for greater responsibility. A much increased flow of promotion will, in fact, occur in the near future as a result of the present expansion of the Force.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that this is sufficient

pay for these men after the number of years they have served, or that it will attract other men into the Service?

Sir P. SASSOON: The promotion will be greatly accelerated.

AIRCRAFT CARRIERS.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the number of officers and other ranks and the number of aeroplanes included in the complement and equipment of the aircraft, carriers in commission, being members or property of the Royal Air Force?

Sir P. SASSOON: The answer is 970 officers and airmen, and 138 aircraft.

NEW TYPE MACHINES (TESTS).

Mr. HULBERT: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the number of new type machines tested at Martlesham Heath during the years ended 31st December, 1934, and 31st -December, 1935?

Sir P. SASSOON: The numbers were 57 and 34 in 1934 and 1935 respectively. These cover service and civil types, and include major modifications which have necessitated type-performance trials.

CATAPULT-LAUNCHING EQUIPMENT.

Mr. HULBERT: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the number of aircraft at present in use fitted with catapult-launching equipment?

Sir P. SASSOON: All aircraft of types in use in the Fleet Air Arm are equipped to take catapult-launching equipment. It would not be in the public interest to disclose their number.

CONTRACTS (NORTH-EAST LANCASHIRE).

Mr. BURKE: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will keep in mind the difficulties and claims of the industrial areas in Northeast Lancashire when establishing new factories and allocating contracts under the schemes of his Department?

Sir P. SASSOON: Yes, Sir. The claims of North-East Lancashire, as of other industrial areas, are being borne in mind.

TANKS.

Mr. SANDYS: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether any


foreign countries possess aeroplanes designed to carry tanks; and whether the Royal Air Force possesses such machines?

Sir P. SASSOON: I understand that the Soviet air force has lately carried out some experiments in the transportation of small tanks by aircraft. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

GREAT WEST ROAD.

Mr. CROWDER: asked the Minister of Transport when he expects the widening of the Great West Road to be completed; and what progress is now being made in that direction by the two county councils concerned?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I will inform my hon. Friend as soon as the Middlesex County Council, who are the responsible highway authority, have come to a decision.

COMMERCIAL VEHICLE LICENCES.

Mr. W. H. GREEN: asked the Minister of Transport the number of licences issued in each of the traffic divisions in respect of A, B, and C licences under the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The figures required are given in the reports of the licensing authorities for the period ended 30th September, 1935.

ROAD IMPROVEMENT (TIPTON).

Mr. BANFIELD: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the delay which has taken place in connection with the Coneygre Road widening and bridge improvement scheme at Tipton, Staffordshire; and whether he is now in a position to give consent to the scheme so that the necessary loan sanction can be obtained from the Ministry of Health?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA.: I have made a grant from the Road Fund towards the cost of this scheme.

Mr. BANFIELD: But surely the Minister must be aware of the delay?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I was not asked the reason, which is that the consulting engineers had not sent in all the necessary information. As soon as it was received I made the grant.

BRIDGE (DEPTFORD CREEK).

Mr. W. H. GREEN: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the danger and delay to transport caused by the wooden bridge over Deptford Creek now being completed by the Southern Railway Company; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure that the conditions of the Act of 1833 protecting free access for transport are carried out and thus prevent hardship and handicap to industry situate at the wharves of Deptford Creek?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am in communication with the railway company.

LIGHTING-UP TIME.

Mr. THURTLE: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is satisfied that the existing law which permits a motorist to travel without lights for one hour after sunset during the period when daylight saving is operative makes adequate provision for safety on the roads?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The new comprehensive analysis which will be made of the causes of all accidents will give convincing information.

TEMPORARY WATERLOO BRIDGE.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the hardship at present caused to the owners and drivers of taximeter-cabs by the fact that their vehicles are not permitted to cross the temporary Waterloo Bridge from south to north; and whether, seeing that cabs are public-service vehicles, he will consider extending to hired taximeter-cabs the same privilege as is enjoyed by omnibuses?

Mr. LLOYD: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that he has again reviewed this question, but he regrets that in view of the traffic conditions at the bridge it is not practicable to extend to taxicabs the present arrangements under which an occasional service of omnibuses is allowed to cross the bridge from south to north.

Sir W. DAVISON: In view of the fact that both these classes of vehicles are public carriers, why should the Commissioner differentiate between one class of public vehicle and mother, especially as great hardship is occasioned to those who own these taxi-cabs?

Mr. LLOYD: There are considerable difficulties in allowing any traffic to come from south to north in view of the conditions at the bridge putting a great deal of inconvenience on passengers at Waterloo. It was desired to make some concession to them and it was thought that the best thing to do was to allow an occasional organised system of omnibuses as being public service vehicles which provide accommodation for the largest number.

Sir W. DAVISON: Many people coining from a railway station use taxi-cabs.

SPEED LIMIT (HEAVY VEHICLES).

Captain STRICKLAND (for Vice-Admiral TAYLOR): asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider extending the permissible speed limit for heavy vehicles to 30 miles per hour between the hours of 8 p.m. and 8 a.m.?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland) on 16th March, of which I am sending him a copy.

Captain STRICKLAND: Why does my right hon. Friend consider the passage of a passenger vehicle at 30 miles per hour as being less dangerous than a goods vehicle of equal weight?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It is not what I consider, but what Parliament considered.

LONDON PASSENGER SERVICES (STOPPAGES).

Captain STRICKLAND (for Vice-Admiral TAYLOR): asked the Minister of Transport the comparative number of stoppages due to strikes which were experienced before and after the formation of the London Passenger Transport Board; and whether any action has been taken by the Metropolitan Commissioner on the lines of that taken by the Commissioner for the East Midland area?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am in communication with the board.

ROAD FUND (EXPENDITURE).

Sir REGINALD CLARRY: asked the Minister of Transport the estimated expenditure out of the Road Fund during the current financial year on the works which are expected to cost £22,500,000 and have been approved for commencement during that period as the first instalment of the five-year road plan and the

estimated expenditure in each succeeding financial year on this first instalment?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The Road Fund's proportion of the total expenditure may be taken roughly at 70 per cent. The rate of expenditure of course depends on the progress made by highway authorities.

RAILINGS (PARLIAMENT SQUARE).

Mr. PARKER: asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will take the initiative in persuading the various authorities concerned to remove the ugly railings round Parliament Square and outside Westminster Abbey?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The hon. Member's suggestion as regards Parliament Square was carefully considered some years ago, and the conclusion was reached that it would increase traffic difficulties because people crossing the Square would tend to take short cuts across the grass, and to cross the roads at various points. There is the further objection that the grass would become worn and unsightly, especially when crowds assemble in the Square on the occasion of weddings or processions. While I personally agree with the hon. Member that the Parliament Square railings are ugly, it must be borne in mind that they were much admired when they were put up.

Mr. PARKER: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Commission whether anything can be done for the removal of the iron railings round the centre of the Square?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Those were what I alluded to. When they were designed articles appeared saying that they were masterpieces. We do not like them to-day, as we do not like a lot of the decorations in this House.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

ALLOTMENTS (BENTLEY, DONCASIE).

Mr. SHORT: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has given his consent to the sale to a building contractor of the land on which is situated the Bentley Road allotments, Bentley, Doncaster, which have existed for over 20 years?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): My consent to the disposal of allotment land for other purposes is required under existing legislation only where the land has been purchased or appropriated by a local authority for allotments. I understand that the land to which the hon. Member refers is in private ownership and that it is intended by the trustees of the estate to develop it as a building site. I am also informed that the town council have a number of vacant allotments available for the present tenants of the Bentley Road allotments.

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE (PERMANENT SECRETARY).

Mr. JOHNSTON: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, seeing that he has just appointed as successor to the present Permanent Secretary to his Department a Treasury official with experience only at the Treasury, he can give any reasons for this particular selection in preference to officials of proved competency and intimate experience in the problems of his Department?

Mr. ELLIOT: The field of selection for the higher posts in the Civil Service is the Service itself as a whole, and there is not, and should not be, any sectional limitation. In connection with the pending retirement of the present Permanent Secretary to the Ministry, the steps usual in such cases have been taken to fill the consequential vacancy, and in making the new appointment, due consideration has been given to the qualifications of all who might be deemed to be qualified to fill that position, whether at present serving in the Department or elsewhere in the Service.

Mr. MUFF: Is the official appointed as watchdog of the Minister of Agriculture?

LIVERPOOL CATHEDRAL (PRAYERS).

Mr. BERNAYS: asked the Lord President of the Council what Orders in Council have been passed sanctioning the omission from the services of the Church of England of the customary prayers for the Ministers of the State?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): No Order in Council has been made for

the purpose to which the hon. Member refers.

Mr. BERNAYS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, these customary prayers were omitted from the service in Liverpool Cathedral on Sunday last because the Dean and Chapter disagreed with the policy of His Majesty's Government; and, apart from the extraordinarily muddled thinking evident in that action, does he not deprecate the employment of religious sanctions against this Government or any other Government by high dignitaries of the Established Church?

Mr. BENSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these prayers have ever been answered?

Mr. MacDONALD: Here, I am afraid, I can only speak as Lord President of the Council. I cannot interfere in what are strictly matters of ecclesiastical discipline.

Mr. PETHERICK: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider introducing legislation under which clergymen of the Church of England may become eligible for membership of this House, and thus make it possible—

Mr. SPEAKER: That point does not arise out of this question.

Mr. V. ADAMS: Is it not a heresy to imply that the wicked are past praying for?

MILITARY CONVERSATIONS.

Mr. JOHNSTON: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the consequences to the lives and financial resources of British citizens involved in the pledge to authorise the establishment or the continuance of conversations for joint action by the military general staffs of Great Britain, France, Belgium, and Italy in the event of unsatisfactory replies being given by the Government of Germany to the proposals made to it on 19th March, he will undertake that, before such conversations begin or their continuation is permitted, he will take steps to seek authority for such military conversations in precise terms by plebiscite from a majority of the persons qualified to vote at Parliamentary elections and at present upon the electoral rolls of this country?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I regret that I am unable to give any such undertaking.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the deep-seated feeling of this country against military alliances, as opposed to a policy of reliance on the Covenant of the League of Nations?

The PRIME MINISTER: These anxieties will undoubtedly be given expression to in the Debate to-morrow. I understand that a Debate will take place to-morrow on Foreign Affairs and I hope, in the progress of the Debate, that those anxieties may be considerably allayed.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason why the people of this country are less entitled to have a say in an important matter of this kind than, say, the people of Australia or Switzerland, who are given the privilege of voting by referendum on these matters?

Mr. McGOVERN: Will he also advise the leaders of the Labour party and the Trades Union Congress to have a plebiscite of their members on the question of sanctions?

Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that has already been done?

ARMISTICE DAY.

Mr. THURTLE: asked the Prime Minister whether he will take whatever steps may seem appropriate to ascertain, by consultation with party leaders or otherwise, whether any considerable body of opinion exists in favour of modifying the ceremonial hitherto carried out in connection with Armistice Day?

The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government are confident that the ceremonial at the Cenotaph service on Armistice Day is in harmony with the feelings of the majority of the nation. I do not think, therefore, that the consultation suggested by the hon. Member is necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE.

INDUSTRY (ORGANISATION).

Mr. SHORT: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether, in connection with the organisation of industry for defence purposes, he pro-

poses to consult the general council of the Trades Union Congress?

The MINISTER for the CO-ORDINATION of DEFENCE (Sir Thomas Inskip): My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the Debate on 9th March, while pointing out that the Defence programme will provide for a long period a great amount of additional work for the engineering and shipbuilding trades, the iron and steel trade and other industries, and outlining the industrial problems to which the programme will give rise as it comes into being, made it clear that nothing in the nature of a reorganisation of industry is contemplated. The employers' and work-people's organisations in the industries concerned will no doubt wish to discuss through their joint machinery, any problems in which they are mutually concerned and they may be relied upon to seek consultation with the Government, either directly or through their central organisations, when it appears to them to be desirable.

STAFFS.

Mr. DAY: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, whether he will give instructions that, all things being equal, opportunities should be given to unemployed persons to fill vacant positions on the industrial and clerical staff to be engaged by his Department?

Sir T. INSKIP: I think it will not be necessary for me to engage any industrial staff. As regards clerical staff, this will be recruited in the same way as the clerical staff of other Government Departments.

Mr. DAY: Has any estimate been made of the number of staff that will be required immediately for this Department?

Sir T. INSKIP: No, Sir.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many have been engaged?

CONTRACTS (COSTING).

Mr. LAWSON: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether he is aware that the ordnance factories carried on the Army Vote have a system of costing which is of great value to the establishments as well as of value to the War Office when contracts have to be made with private firms; and whether he


intends to avail himself of this experience in making large-scale contracts in the future?

Sir T. INSKIP: I am aware of the system of costing in the ordnance factories and the method whereby the ordnance factories' costs are utilised to check trade prices. That experience is available to all Departments which are responsible for making contracts, as well as to myself.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the costs of the ordnance factories are much too high? [An HON. MEMBER: "How do you know?"] I have seen them at work.

AIRCRAFT.

Mr. GARDNER: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether the defence of the civil population from the results of possible bombing attacks from the air will be directly, or indirectly, part of the work of his Department?

Sir T. INSKIP: It is part of my duty to ensure the co-ordination of all air defence measures. But passive or precautionary measures, which are I think what the hon. Member has in mind, are the responsibility of the Home Office. He may care to refer to paragraph 44 of Command Paper 5107, and to earlier paragraphs, as regards the functions of the Army and Air Force.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether tests as to the effect of bombs and torpedoes from the air will be carried out before expenditure is incurred upon new warships?

Sir T. INSKIP: Experiments have been carried out continuously for some time past and will continue, but the Prime Minister proposes to appoint a subcommittee of the Committee of Imperial Defence to examine the results and the conclusions which can be drawn from them. The terms of reference will be:
To consider the experiments that have taken place or are proposed in connection with the defence against aircraft and the vulnerability from the air of capital ships.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his answer, may I ask him whether both the Air Ministry and the Admiralty will be in charge of the experiments?

Sir T. INSKIP: Yes, Sir. If my right hon. and gallant Friend means whether each of them will be in charge of each single experiment, my answer may require some modification, but generally, the answer is "Yes."

Mr. LAMBERT: Will the sub-committee have within their purview the vulnerability of our dockyards from aerial attack?

Sir T. INSKIP: No, Sir.

CALCIUM CARBIDE.

Mr. CHAPMAN: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether, in view of the importance of calcium carbide to our Defence Services and industries, especially in war-time, His Majesty's Government will take steps to ensure the establishment of an industry in the United Kingdom capable of producing the maximum quantity required?

Sir T. INSKIP: My hon. Friend may rest assured that the Government have not lost sight of the importance of ensuring supplies of calcium carbide both in peace and war. They would welcome any scheme to promote the manufacture of this material in the United Kingdom.

Mr. D. EVANS: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his co-ordinating influence to induce these firms to establish this industry in a distressed area where there is an ample supply of raw materials, including anthracite and limestone, an ample supply of power at reasonable cost and labour?

Sir T. INSKIP: A very important question in this connection is, what sort of power is available for the purpose in question?

MERCANTILE MARINE TONNAGE.

Rear - Admiral Sir MURRAY SUETER: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give careful consideration to the question of maintaining sufficient tonnage of merchant shipping always available in this country to meet any defence emergency that may arise, and take any steps that may be necessary to prevent the sale of effective vessels for possible use as transports by foreign countries?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD OF TRADE (Dr. Burgin): This question is kept under constant review by the Departments concerned. So


far it has not been found necessary to prevent the sale of vessels to foreign countries.

PETROL AND SPIRIT STORAGE.

Mr. GARDNER: asked the Home Secretary (1) whether, in view of a possible national emergency, he is giving any special attention to the dangers likely to arise from the present methods of storing petrol in bulk;
(2) whether, in view of a possible national emergency, he will consider making regulations forbidding the storage of white spirit and other inflammable spirit in tanks above ground?

Mr. LLOYD: The question of the protection of stores of oil under the conditions of national emergency is receiving the Government's attention. I am not, however, at present in a position to make any statement on the measures which will be recommended.

TRADE AND COMMERCE (GERMANY).

Mr. RILEY: asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of British exports to Germany for the years 1929, 1931, 1933, and 1935, respectively?

Dr. BURGIN: The hon. Member will find the particulars for the years 1929 and 1931 on page 124 of the Trade and Navigation Accounts for January, 1932, and the figures for 1933 and 1935 on page 188 of the Accounts for January last.

Mr. CLYNES: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, under the provisions of the quota allowance, there is a disparity in the quantity of bookbinding and allied trades' machinery which Great Britain may export to France compared with the greater quantity of such exports allowed to Germany; whether he is aware that the quota restrictions mean a serious loss to a Manchester firm and its workmen; and whether he can investigate the matter with a view to an early removal of conditions which are causing great inconvenience and loss?

Dr. BURGIN: Germany has in the past been the principal supplier of printing and similar machinery to France. The French quotas are based on past trade, and this principle was recognised

in the Anglo-French Trade Agreement in order that the United Kingdom might he guaranteed its proper share. The United Kingdom already receives the full quota for such machinery to which she is entitled under the Agreement.

Mr. CLYNES: Seeing that the disparity referred to in the question makes an enormous difference in favour of Germany, could not some further investigation be undertaken with a view to a more equitable arrangement?

Dr. BURGIN: I should, of course, always be willing to investigate further any matter which the right hon. Gentleman brought to our attention, but at present my answer to the House must be that the United Kingdom already receives the full quota to which it is legally entitled. A revision of the agreement is, of course, another matter, and that I will discuss with the right hon. Gentleman if he wishes.

SOUTH AFRICA.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has any further statement to make on the subject of closer co-operation with the Union Government in matters affecting the High Commission Territories in South Africa?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): It will be remembered that, in the course of discussions in May last between my predecessor and General Hertzog, it was agreed that endeavours should be made to establish closer cooperation between the Administrations of the High Commission Territories and the Union Government in matters affecting the Territories. In pursuance of this aim, the Union Government have recently offered to assist financially and in other ways with certain schemes for combating soil erosion and for developing water supplies which had been recommended by Sir Alan Pim, who recently reported on economic conditions in the Territories. The offer has been accepted by the High Commissioner, and I understand that the Union Government are placing a sum of £35,000 on their Estimates for the coming financial year for these purposes. This sum amounts to 50 per cent. of the total expenditure contemplated for next


year on the particular items concerned. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are convinced that the cooperation which His Majesty's Government in the Union have thus offered will be productive of considerable benefit to the three Territories. A full statement of the proposals is being communicated to the local native authorities.

Mr. DUNCAN: Is one of the territories Bechuanaland?

Mr. MacDONALD: Yes, Sir.

DISTURBANCES, KENSINGTON.

Mr. MABANE: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that for a considerable period on Sunday night last the free passage of His Majesty's subjects was interrupted by the Metropolitan police in an area adjacent to the Albert Hall; and whether he will state a reason for this inconvenience?

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the distribution last week of quantities of leaflets inciting persons to assemble in large numbers outside the Albert Hall on the occasion of a public meeting therein for the purpose of opposing the objects of the meeting; and if he will state what steps were taken to frustrate this attempted interference with free speech?

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the action of the Metropolitan police in dispersing a meeting held in Thurloe Square in the evening of Sunday, 22nd March; whether he is aware that batons were used by the police; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be instituted into the action of the police on this occasion?

Sir P. HARRIS: asked the Home Secretary whether he can explain the reason for the dispersal by mounted police of a crowd at Thurloe Square on Sunday; and whether any preliminary warning was given to the persons involved?

Mr. HULBERT: asked the Home Secretary whether he has any statement to make in regard to the disturbances at a Fascist meeting at the Albert Hall on

Sunday last; the cost of special police employed on this occasion; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent similar meetings being held which cause such disorganisation of traffic and general disorder?

Mr. V. ADAMS: asked the Home Secretary whether he has any statement to make on the disorders attending the Fascist meeting at the Royal Albert Hall on 22nd March; whether any extra expenditure was involved in special police protection for the Fascist demonstrators; and whether any prosecutions are to be taken in view of cases of violence employed by the Fascist stewards in ejecting members of the audience?

Mr. THURTLE: asked the Home Secretary whether he has made any inquiries into the disturbances which took place on the night of 22nd March in the vicinity of the Albert Hall, and especially into the allegation that mounted police made an unprovoked assault with batons upon a peaceful meeting in Thurloe Square; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): The reply to these questions is rather longer than usual, but I will limit it to essential matters. I have made inquiries, and the facts are as follow:
With a view to preventing disorder in the streets (such as has previously occurred) in connection with the Fascist meeting last Sunday evening, the Commissioner of Police issued directions that no counter-procession or counter-meeting should be allowed at the same time within half a mile of the Albert Hall. Intimation of this direction was officially given to the London District Council of the Communist party and to Mr. John Strachey, from whose address a, circular had been issued calling for
an overwhelming demonstration to take place outside the Royal Albert Hall at 7 p.m., to be followed by a public meeting in Exhibition Road at 8.30 p.m.
It was, of course, explained to these parties that there was no objection to meetings in the usual meeting place in. Hyde Park, but they none the less persisted in their original plans. Anti-Fascist processions from several quarters


were escorted into the Park, where they held a meeting. Attempts, however, were also made to hold an anti-Fascist meeting in Exhibition Road, and later a crowd of two or three thousand collected in Thurloe Square (which faces the end of Exhibition Road) where Mr. Strachey and others addressed them. A body of about 20 mounted police and 60 foot police proceeded to the Square. Before the arrival of the police there was disorder at the bottom of Exhibition Road, and members of the crowd were stopping motor cars. A bottle was thrown at a police officer, but missed the officer and broke a shop window. In order to prevent the approach of the police to Thurloe Square, a number of persons round the meeting linked arms and appealed to the crowd to stand fast. The police were informed by a member of this body that they bad better not approach the crowd, or the police would get more than they anticipated. The officer in charge of the police replied that the assembly was in the prohibited area, and was, moreover, causing serious obstruction, and he appealed for the meeting to be closed and for the crowd to disperse. The crowd refused, and some of them threw stones and earth. The officer in charge ultimately instructed the mounted police to disperse the crowd; they advanced, and, in view of attempts made to unseat the riders, truncheons had to be drawn and in some cases used. The crowd was dispersed in about 10 minutes and order was thereafter restored.
In connection with the police arrangements, vehicles passing along the Kensington Road were diverted round the back of the Albert Hall.
As regards the meeting in the Albert Hall, I understand that the speakers were constantly interrupted, and a number of interrupters were removed by the stewards. About 30 police were stationed inside the Hall itself. In addition, about 100 police were posted at the doors leading from the Hall itself to the surrounding corridors, and they received from the stewards the persons who were ejected and escorted them out of the building.
The number of police employed in connection with the Fascist meeting and the anti-Fascist counter-demonstration was

about 2,500, and, in addition, about 400 were kept in reserve. It is estimated that the additional expenditure involved was about £300.

Mr. MABANE: In view of the fact that the interest of the general public is far greater than that of either of these sections, does not the right hon. Gentleman think he would be justified in requiring that a place such as the Albert Hall should not be made available for meetings—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]should not be made available for meetings likely to cause a breach of the peace and serious interference with the general body of the public?

Sir J. SIMON: The disposal of the Albert Hall is not, of course, in public hands, and I think we must face the responsibilities of living in a free country.

Mr. FOOT: With reference to that part of the original answer which dealt with the meeting in Thurloe Square, has the right hon. Gentleman read the statements which have been supplied to him, of persons who were present at that meeting, and who say that it was an orderly meeting and that the action of the police was unprovoked; does he say that those statements are untrue; and, if not, does he not think that there is matter there which demands inquiry?

Sir J. SIMON: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for having sent me certain statements collected by the Council for Civil Liberties. They did not include any statement from Mr. John Strachey. Of course I will pay due attention to those statements, but I have made very careful inquiries myself, and I have given the House the result of my own inquiries. As regards the character of the police action, I would ask leave to add that 24 persons were arrested; that not one of those 24 persons complained at the police station that they had received injury; that not a single one of them even asked to see the doctor; that at least two policemen received very severe kicks; that one is suffering from a most painful assault and is still unable to resume his duty; and that the assaulter, who was in Thurloe Square, was so violent that the police had to remove his boots, and he has since been convicted by the magistrate and fined.

Mr. V. ADAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the management of the Albert Hall refuse the use of the hall to anti-Fascist bodies?

Sir J. SIMON: I was not aware of it, but the hon. Member must realise that that is a matter quite outside the scope of the Home Office.

Mr. ADAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the question of freedom of speech, therefore, does arise?

Mr. THURTLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House the name of the officer in charge who ordered the squad of mounted police to charge? Further, in view of the fact that the impartiality of the police is in question, why was the Fascist procession allowed to proceed along Constitution Hill, past Buckingham Palace and along Birdcage Walk, contrary to all precedent?

Sir J. SIMON: If the last part of the question is really suggesting that the police have been showing favouritism, I assure the hon. Member that there really is not the least ground for the suggestion. The route that was taken I do not know at all. These people were going to their meeting, and it was quite right that they should go to it, whether you or I agree with them or not. Equally, of course, the processions of those of another view are looked after with equal care and equal courtesy. I only know that the police—I hope the House thinks they were right—took the most skilful steps to secure that there should not be a collision between the two parties. As for the name of the officer, I will, of course—[HON. MEMBERS: "No !"]—I do not know whether my excited friend behind me will allow me to finish my sentence. As regards the officer, I will, of course, make inquiries, but my present information is that he was a most responsible officer, and I take responsibility for what he did.

Mr. SHINWELL: May we take it that the right hon. Gentleman will afford as much protection to an anti-Fascist meeting as he would to a meeting of Fascists?

Sir J. SIMON: Inasmuch as this is a free country, and we all value freedom, I should have thought it hardly necessary to put such a question, but, since the hon. Member thinks fit to put it, let me give him an assurance that as long, at any

rate, as this Government is in power we shall not seek to draw any distinction at all between one party and another.

Sir W. DAVISON: As Thurloe Square is in my constituency, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to see that no further demonstrations of any kind are held there? It is a quiet residential neighbourhood, quite unsuitable for demonstrations.

Mr. FOOT: I beg to give notice that I shall raise the Thurloe Square incident on the Adjournment.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: May I ask a supplementary question in respect to my question?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the supplementary questions that have been put have covered the ground.

AUTOMATIC GAMING MACHINES.

Major OWEN: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to resolutions passed by various courts of quarter sessions calling for legislation to deal with automatic gaming machines; and whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation to this effect in accordance with the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Lotteries and Betting?

Mr. LLOYD: Yes, Sir, but my right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot undertake to introduce legislation on this subject.

LAW OFFICERS (EMOLUMENTS).

Mr. V. ADAMS: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state in two lump sums the total emoluments in fees and salaries, respectively, received from their offices by successive Attorney-Generals and Solicitor-Generals for England from the beginning of 1926 to the end of 1935?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. W. S. Morrison): Figures for the period of 10 calendar years ended 31st December, 1935, are not ' immediately available. The total emoluments in fees and salaries during the 10 financial years 1st April, 1925, to 31st March, 1935, were as follow: Attorneys-General, £188,067; Solicitors-General, £114,212.

Mr. ADAMS: In view of the Debate to-day, may I ask whether the Government will consider adjusting this, the most fabulous of all anomalies?

Mr. MORRISON: That is a matter that can be left to the Debate, but I might point out that the two Select Commitees which examined the matter recommended the present scales of salary.

Mr. THORNE: Are they paid at trade union rates?

Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not true that they have to make tremendous sacrifices in order to accept the posts?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

ALLOWANCES.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: asked the Minister of Labour the proportion of allowances paid by the Unemployment Assistance Board, according to the scale of the board, to the allowances paid according to the transitional payments scale, at the latest convenient date and in February, 1935?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): In February, 1935, the approximate proportions were 49 per cent of payments according to Unemployment Assistance regulations and 51 per cent. according to the transitional payments practice. In December, 1935, when the position had been affected by the increase of 1s. in the rate of unemployment benefit for dependent children, the corresponding proportions were 44 per cent. and 56 per cent.

DURHAM COUNTY.

Mr. W. JOSEPH STEWART: asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed in Durham county between the ages of 16 and 65; and the amount paid in standard benefits and transitional payments since 1931?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: A statement showing the amounts paid in transitional payments and unemployment allowances in the county of Durham during the period between 12th November, 1931, and the end of the year 1935, was circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT on 4th February, in reply to a, question put by the hon. Member on 19th December. I am having the other particulars

extracted and will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as possible.

PROPOSED AIR PACT.

Mr. SANDYS: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, as was stated by Herr von Ribbentrop in his speech at the Council of the League of Nations, on 19th March, the offer of an air pact originated with Germany; and whether it was rejected on the ground that such a pact could only be agreed to in combination with Germany's adhesion to an eastern pact?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount Cranborne): The proposal for the conclusion of an air pact for the five Western Powers was originally made in the Anglo-French Declaration of 3rd February, 1935. It did not originate with Germany. It was originally understood that such a pact should form part of the general settlement outlined in the February Declaration. During the summer of 1935, however, the French Government agreed that that understanding need not prevent the negotiation—as distinguished from the conclusion—of an air pact independently of the other matters, including the eastern pact, dealt with in the Declaration. Far from refusing to proceed with the negotiation of an air pact, His Majesty's Government on more than one occasion urged upon the German Government in the autumn of 1935 and again in January and February of this year the desirability of opening negotiations without further delay.

Mr. SANDYS: Will the Government, in these circumstances, correct the false impression created in the mind of the German Government as to the parentage of the child?

Viscount CRANBORNE: I hope that my answer to-day will have that effect.

ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.

Mr. RILEY: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any peace negotiations are taking place between Italy and Abyssinia either directly or through the League of Nations?

Viscount CRANBORNE: On 23rd March the Committee of Thirteen adopted a resolution taking note of the replies


given by the Italian and Ethiopian Governments to the appeal addressed to them by the Committee on 3rd March. These replies, as my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) was informed on 16th March, expressed readiness, in principle, to take part in negotiations. The resolution further requested the Chairman of the Committee, assisted by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations, to get into touch with the two parties and to take such steps as might be called for in order that the Committee might be able, as soon as possible, to bring the two parties together and, within the framework of the League and in the spirit of the Covenant, to bring about the prompt cessation of hostilities and the final restoration of peace. I have no information respecting any direct negotiations between the two parties. The Ethiopian Government have denied that any such negotiations are in progress.

Mr. RILEY: Has the hon. Gentleman any information in the nature of proposals which are suggested, and, if so, will he make a statement to the House at an early date?

Viscount CRANBORNE: No, Sir. I have no information at the present time.

THAMES BARRAGE ASSOCIATION (SCHEME).

Mr. MacLAREN: asked the Minister of Transport what are the grounds of his refusal to take steps to hold a public inquiry into the proposal placed before him by a deputation from the Thames Barrage Association on 17th October last?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: There is no sufficient body of informed opinion before me in support of the scheme to justify me in putting the numerous interests concerned to the expense and trouble of an inquiry.

FOREIGN VESSELS (BRITISH PORTS).

Mr. MUFF (for Mr. WINDSOR): asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the large increase in the number of foreign ships trading between British ports, particularly in the seed potato and coal carrying trades; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Dr. BURGIN: I have no information regarding the position in the two trades to which the hon. Member refers, but the official returns show that there has been in recent months an increase in the tonnage of vessels under foreign flags arriving at and departing from United Kingdom ports with cargo in the coasting trade. With regard to the second part of the question, I am not aware of any useful action which it is practicable for the Government to take.

Mr. SHINWELL: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any representation has been made on this matter by the British Chamber of Shipping?

Dr. BURGIN: Not that I am aware of, but if the hon. Gentleman will put a question down I will have inquiries made.

Mr. MUFF (for Mr. WINDSOR): asked the President of the Board of Trade the total tonnage of foreign vessels arriving and departing from British ports for the months of January and February, 1935, and 1936, respectively?

Dr. BURGIN: The aggregate net tonnage of foreign vessels which arrived at or departed from ports in the United Kingdom in the foreign and coasting trades in January and February, 1936, amounted to 15,319,000, the corresponding figure for last year being 14,304,000 tons net.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

PARACHUTE EXPERIMENTS.

Mr. SANDYS: asked the Secretary of State for War wt ether any foreign countries have carried out. manoeuvres in which attacks have been made by infantry descending from aeroplanes by parachute; and whether the War Office are considering trying out similar operations.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Sir Victor Warrender): Apart from the trials carried out by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics during the autumn manoeuvres of 1935, I know of no similar experiments. The possible use of parachutes by troops in this country is being investigated.

FOOD SUPPLY (MARCARINE).

Mr. SHINWELL (for Mr. LEACH): asked the Secretary of State for War


whether the discussions of his Department with the other two Services on the question of substituting butter for margarine for the use of the forces have resulted in any decisions; and, if so, what. decisions have been reached?

Sir V. WARRENDER: No decision has yet been reached.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make concerning Business for Tomorrow?

Mr. BALDWIN: I think I have already made a statement in a supplementary reply. It is proposed that the Debate on Foreign Affairs should take place Tomorrow on the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill.

Mr. ATTLEE: Will the Debate be opened by a statement on behalf of the Government?

Mr. BALDWIN: I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would like to open the Debate, and that it would probably meet the convenience of the House if he did so.

IMPORTATION OF PLUMAGE (PROHIBITION) ACT (1921) AMENDMENT.

Mr. MATHERS: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Importation of Plumage (Prohibition) Act, 1921.
The Act which I seek to amend made illegal the importation into this country of the plumage of certain rare and beautiful birds. It was passed 15 years ago, and it is now thought necessary that we should complete the process by making illegal the sale of prohibited plumage in this country. The simple Bill which I desire to bring in provides that the sale shall be illegal, and also provides penalties for such illegal sales. It is

rather remarkable that after 15 years there should still be offered for sale in this country plumage which has been illegally, as we believe, imported into this country, and it is necessary that the Amendment which I desire to bring in should be put into operation. When the 1921 Act was passed, or shortly afterwards, it was stated by those who were able to speak for the trade that there was in this country at that time plumage which was then prohibited which would last for approximately nine months, or at the outside one year in supplying the trade. We do know that since the 1921 Act was passed there have been cases of illegal smuggling into this country of thousands of skins of birds with prohibited plumage in defiance of the Act. I am a loyal and, generally speaking, I hope a law-abiding citizen, and I want to see that any prohibition laid down by Parliament is properly observed. In many parts of the British Empire there is a prohibition against the export of this plumage, and it seems to me that those who value Empire unity will support the Bill in order to make illegal the importation into this country of plumage which should not be exported from different parts of the Empire. The United States of America have already taken the step which I am asking the House to approve and have prohibited the sale in America of this plumage. That is the legal aspect of the case.
But there are considerations much more weighty than that; the humane considerations. The plumage which is prohibited in this country is obtained by the slaughter of birds at the very time when they are in the full enjoyment of the joy of life, during the mating and reproductive period of their lives when they dress themselves most gaudily. During that period they are hunted and killed for the purposes of decoration. It does not seem to matter to those who make a profit out of this trade that they may he ending the life not only of the individual bird but of a family of birds, or of the species to which the birds belong. I think it is a terrible thing that we should so treat some of the most delicate and beautiful specimens of the handiwork of the Creator. It may be said, why is there an inducement to import into this country plumage which is prohibited We must lay the charge on those who wish to decorate themselves with this plumage.


We men can discourage our women friends, our mothers, our wives, our sisters and our daughters, from having any taste this way. The recent tendency to gaudy displays of feathers in the dresses of some of those who take part in films may possibly lead some unthinking women to try and copy the style. If an appeal to their better nature does not impress our women folk, perhaps when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament it will be possible for people knowing that such an Act exists, when they see our women folk with an osprey or some other feather of a prohibited plumage decorating them, to ask " Where did you get that hat? " We do not want to put them to that indignity. I think the case is so simple that every hon. Member will want to back the Bill.
There is nothing significant in the fact that I stand at this Box and ask leave to bring in the Bill. It is entirely a nonparty, or rather an all-party, Measure, and if I am given the opportunity, as I hope I shall be, to read out the names of those who are backing the Bill, it will be found that it is backed in all parts of the House. I appeal to the House to give me leave to bring in the Bill in order to protect these beautiful birds from extinction because we look upon these birds in the same way as Robert Burns looked upon the field mouse when his plough cut through its nest. They are
Our poor earth-born companions, and fellow-mortals.
It is in that spirit that I ask leave to bring in the Bill.

Miss RATHBONE: Is the hon. Member aware that most women shoppers are informed by the shopkeeper that the plumage is not prohibited? Is it not the case that women need protection from misinformation?

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: I rise to oppose the Motion. Unfortunately I had not studied my Order Paper with such care as usual, and I was not aware that this proposal was going to be moved, otherwise I should have prepared myself with documentary evidence on the matter. But the Bill itself is a charge that our Customs officials are failing in the performance of their duties. When I was at the Board of Trade this matter was investigated. It is not true to say that

there is great smuggling into this country of this prohibited plumage, because it is not getting in.

Mr. MATHERS: I can bring the hon. Member proof that thousands of skins with prohibited plumage have been brought into this country since the 1921 Act was passed.

Mr. WILLIAMS: If the hon. Member has such proof, he has failed in his duty in not drawing the attention of the authorities to the proof, so that the requisite prosecutions might have taken place.

Mr. MATHERS: The requisite prosecutions have taken place, and the skins have been confiscated.

Mr. WILLIAMS: If the prosecutions have taken place and the skins have been confiscated, the evil with which the hon. Member proposes to deal does not exist. Obviously, if it is an offence to bring them into the country, as it is, and if there is no proof of successful smuggling—

Colonel CLIFTON BROWN: How does one prove successful smuggling?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I listened with great patience to the hon. Gentleman, and I am entitled to state that which I learned when I was at the Board of Trade. I learned that certain societies collect a good deal of money from innocent people by telling them tales of horror which relate to the past and not to the present. That is an unfair exploitation of innocent people. The proposal that this Bill shall be introduced represents a charge that this illegal plumage is being sold in this country when it is known that it is new plumage obtained since the Act of 1921 was passed. I do not think there is the slightest justification for that allegation, nor do I think it fair to the British public that it should be told that these horrors which used to be, still exist. I protest as much as anybody against the horrors that were associated with the plucking of the plumage of birds when they were actually sitting on their eggs. It was a horrible practice supported by the fashions of this country. But because it existed in the past, that is no justification for charging innocent British people to-day with the commission of an offence which they have not committed. This Bill is prompted by societies which


exist for the collection of subscriptions from people whose sympathy is excited by stories of past horrors which do not exist to-day. Time and time again this matter was raised in another place by a certain Noble Lord who is now dead, and every time it was raised there was brought up the story of the same old solitary ostrich which was about 50 years old, and which was used as the horrifying example. This kind of legislation is so much humbug.

Viscountess ASTOR: May I ask—

Mr. WILLIAMS: The Noble Lady may ask as many things as she likes, but I do not think there is much chance of their being dealt with under the Ten-Minute Rule. I do ask the House to hesitate, not before giving leave to introduce the Bill, but before passing it into law. I hope that if this Bill should be given a Second Reading, it will be referred to a Select Committee, so that those who make the charges to which I have referred will have an opportunity of producing evidence in justification.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mathers, Viscountess Astor, Mr. Barr, Colonel Clifton Brown, Mr. Allan Chapman, Mr. Stephen Davies, Mr. Grenfell, Mr. Kingsley Griffith, Mr. Groves, Mr. Graham Kerr, Mr. Lewis, and Miss Rathbone.

IMPORTATION OF PLUMAGE (PROHIBITION) Act (1921) AMENDMENT BILL,

"to amend the Importation of Plumage (Prohibition) Act, 1921," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday, 6th April, and to be printed.—[Bill 81.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.

Sir Henry Cautley reported from the Committee of Selection; That Mr. Cassels, being a Member representing a Scottish constituency, is added to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills under Standing Order No. 47 (2).

Report to lie upon the Table.

MINISTERS' SALARIES.

3.55 p.m.

Mr. MACLAY: I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, the anomalies in the existing scale of ministerial salaries should be removed as soon as possible, that all Members of the Cabinet, with the exception of the Prime Minister, should receive the same salary irrespective of the office held, that the salary of the Prime Minister should be increased, and that all offices held by Ministers should be classified on the lines recommended in 1920 by a Select Committee of this House.

Mr. DENMAN: May I ask a question about the procedure this afternoon? There is on the Paper an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams) and myself suggesting that the Leadership of the Opposition should become a salaried office. I want to ask you whether, if it appears in the Debate that there is a general desire that those words should be added, and if at a reasonable time the preceding Amendment is disposed of, you would in those circumstances call the Amendment to which I have referred?

Mr. SPEAKER: I doubt whether the Amendment will be reached, but, in any case, it appears to me to be out of order, because the Motion of which notice has been given calls attention to Ministers' salaries, and the Leader of the Opposition is not a Minister.

Mr. MACLAY: This country is now passing through anxious and difficult days. The attention of the Government and the House is fully occupied by foreign and home affairs, and although it cannot be claimed that this Motion is vital among all those other problems, I think that among hon. Members in this House and a large section of the public outside there is a feeling that the question of the anomalies of Ministers' salaries should be taken up now and not be allowed to drift further. The next few years are likely to be just as busy ones for the Government had for Parliament as the past two years have been, and it will be no easier for any future Government to take up this matter than for the present one. If it can be shown by the Debate to-day that there are unjustifiable inequalities in Ministers' salaries and that it is the feeling of all parties in this country that they should be righted, and if there is a feeling that there have been

sufficient committees to take evidence on this matter, I suggest that it is to be hoped that the Government and hon. Members will take action without delay.
There have been two Select Committees of this House to deal with this matter, the one in 1920 and the other, set up by the Labour party, in 1930. Evidence was taken from many representative persons who were fitted to evidence on the question. There were, for instance, such persons as the late Lord Oxford—Mr. Asquith, as he was, in 1920—the present Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), the present Lord President of the Council, the present Lord Chancellor and Sir Warren Fisher. The findings of the 1920 Committee were practically unanimous on all matters and the recommendations were generally along the lines of the Motion which I have put down, but no action whatsoever was taken. In response to a demand, another Select Committee was set up in 1930 and it reached the same conclusions, which may be generally summed up as being that the scale of salaries in some respects was anomalous, and in others was inadequate. The 1930 Committee recommended, however, that the time was inopportune for general revision, with one exception, which was that the Prime Minister's salary should be dealt with without delay. That happened five years ago and nothing has been done; even the Prime Minister's salary, which everyone agreed should be dealt with soon, has not been dealt with. I presume the reason is to be found in the economic conditions of the country in 1930 and 1931, and since that time and also there is the very natural reluctance of any Government to propose an increase in their own salaries. I would say, in the words of one of the leading daily papers of this morning, that the
reluctance to face it, however honourable in motive, has become by this time the condonation of what is little short of a scandal.
I do not think that is too strong language. Before coming to the actual anomalies, I would like to make one or-two general remarks in case some hon. Members have not had time to read any of the evidence of the two Committees. It should be quite clearly understood that Ministers' salaries are not an addition to their £400 as Members of Parliament, but include them, which is not


the case in some foreign countries. It should also be realised that since a great many of the salaries were fixed the incidence of taxation has increased enormously. Some time before the War it was 4d. in the £. Upon £5,000 that meant that a Minister's salary was about £4,800 year. To-day, owing to the incidence of present-day taxation, that salary is fully £1,000 less. Five thousand pounds less tax represents about £3,800. The Select Committee found that there were no other financial benefits accruing to Ministers from any source whatever through their holding office. The Committee also found that it was necessary for some Ministers of State to incur considerable expenditure on entertaining which was not legitimately chargeable to the Government hospitality fund. This expense was specially heavy on persons like the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and one or two other Ministers.
With regard to the general level of Cabinet Ministers' salaries in other countries, it is a little difficult to find exact figures, but as far as I can gather the general level of Ministers' salaries is slightly below ours in most Dominions and foreign countries. But there are practically no cases of anomalies like those that we have here. In every case Cabinet salaries are on a flat scale, the Prime Minister being paid on a higher scale. The United States of America is the exception, but even there they pay their ordinary Members of Parliament the equivalent of £1,000 a year. I am not going to take up any time with the historical origins of any of these salaries, some of which go back a 100 and some 150 years. No salaries have the slightest relationship, from the business point of view, to the responsibility of the Ministers concerned.
Let me direct attention to some of the anomalies which exist under the present arrangement. There can be no excuse, from any point of view, for the very large differences that exist. The majority of the Cabinet receive salaries of £5,000 a year, including the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Health, but the following responsible Ministers, who also have seats in the Cabinet—I refer to the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Agriculture, the President of the Board of Education and

the Secretary of State for Scotland—all receive £3,000 less as salary. Their salary is £2,000 a year. I do not think it can be denied that all these Ministers have posts which involve heavy work and great responsibility; and no one can say that the responsibility to-day of a Minister of Labour or of a Minister of Agriculture is any less than that of a Minister of Health. Why then the difference in salary?
Let me refer briefly in detail to one or two of the Ministers who are paid on the lower scale. Take the Secretary of State for Scotland. A few years ago this office was raised to the dignity of a Secretary ship of State, which gave a great deal of pleasure to the people of Scotland. It was thought at that time that the salary would naturally be increased with the increase of status. But nothing has been done. It is as well to point out that the present Scottish Office covers the Departments of Health, the Home Office, Education and Agriculture, all of which have separate Cabinet posts in England. In Scotland, however, they are all under the one Minister. As far as salary is concerned the Secretary of State for Scotland remains at the same level as the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade. He receives even less than the Postmaster-General. Apart from the feeling in Scotland that the dignity and the status of the Office call for equality with the other great offices of State, I venture to suggest to the House that the responsibility and the vastly increased work make out a case by themselves for an increase of salary. One other point with regard to the Secretary of State for Scotland is the heavy extra responsibility incurred by the Minister having to scrutinise all the legislation of such Departments as Agriculture and the Home Office, so as to see that the interests of Scotland and England do not conflict and that the interests of Scotland are not neglected. That is a heavy responsibility.
With regard to the Ministers of Agriculture and Labour and Education, all of whom are paid a salary of £2,000, I would like to give one short quotation. It is from the present Prime Minister's evidence before the Select Committee of 1930, when he stated:
Some of the offices that are still receiving the lower salaries are offices that I think are grossly underpaid. I mean that to-day


there is no more important office in the Ministry than the Ministry of Labour. It is one of the key situations. The work to-day in the Ministry of Labour is enough to exhaust any man in four or five years, however strong he may be. He is worked right out at the end of that time. He gets £2,000 a year. It is ridiculous.
The same argument applies to the Ministers of Agriculture and Education. It is obviously unjust that these Cabinet posts should be on a lower scale by £3,000 than the posts of many other Cabinet Ministers. The case for equalizing is so obvious that there is no point in labouring it further. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether you are going to call the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Lathan), but, if you are, I would like to make one reference to it. The hon. Member in his Amendment agrees, I think, that these anomalies should be removed, but he does not wish the aggregate expenditure to be increased. Naturally the effect of that must be that the salaries of the higher-paid posts would have to be dropped. All I can say is this: I am sure it is the feeling of almost everyone that the great offices of State in this country are not at present overpaid, and that if there is to be an equalising it will have to be in the main upwards.
It is difficult to give figures, and I am not sure whether it would be wise to do so. I do not know who is to reply for the Government. Roughly I estimate that the cost of the alterations along the lines of my Motion would be, less taxation, under £20,000 per annum, and I hope that after listening to the Debate the House will not favour the Amendment. Let me come to the general case for equality of salaries. The first point to make is that the doctrine of equal responsibility presents a strong case for equality of salaries. Some Ministers for a few years may be in greater prominence than others, or for a period of years some Ministers may be less prominent than others. But these things even themselves out. The evidence of all the Prime Ministers, with the exception of one, does indicate that there should be no discrimination between Cabinet salaries. When I read the evidence given before both Select Committees I found that there was one aspect which came very prominently before those Committees, and that was the difficulty of a Prime Minister in forming a Cabinet when salaries were so differ-

ent. Let me give another short quotation, also from the present Prime Minister's evidence regarding this point. My right hon. Friend said:
Most Prime Ministers hesitate to offer a £2,000 a year office to 4, man who has held a £5,000 a year office. To a man who has held a £5,000 a year office would hesitate before accepting a £2,000 a year office. He would feel that it was a step down. It is not a step down really, but he would feel that, as you can quite understand.
There is no doubt that it would ease the task of Prime Ministers, when forming a Cabinet, if they had not this difficult and delicate question of salaries to consider as well. I think a strong case is made out from practically every point of view that salaries in the Cabinet, apart from those of the Prime Minister and the Law Officers, should be equal. Although it is not in the Motion, the inference is that a Minister when he leaves the Cabinet would revert to his ordinary salary.
Both Select Committees suggested that salaries should be drawn up in a certain classification. The 1920 Committee recommended—and the recommendation was agreed to by the 1930 Committee—that offices with the exception of those of the Prime Minister and the Law Officers should be classified in five different classes. In Class I was to be the £5,000 salary, which all Members of the Cabinet were to receive. Class II was to be £3,000 a year, which senior Ministers outside the Cabinet were to receive. Class III was to be £2,000 a year, and the suggestion was that junior Ministers and senior Under-Secretaries should receive it. Class IV was £1,500 a year, for Under-Secretaries. Class V was £1,000 a year, to be paid to such persons as Lords Commissioners. These, of course, are only examples and they were suggested in the year 1920. Obviously a list which was made up then, years ago, does not apply to-day.
Because the classification received the agreement of both Select Committees I have included it in my Motion. If we had a new classification such as is suggested, I venture to suggest that it would put an end to the present haphazard and anomalous position of the whole range of Ministers and junior Ministers. It would end such inequalities outside the Cabinet as that of the Minister of Transport with


£2,000 a year receiving less than the Postmaster-General and the same as the Parliamentary Secretary and the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty. It would end the anomaly of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland receiving £1,200 a year while other Under-Secretaries, including the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, receive higher salaries. It would also end the anomaly of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade and the Secretary for Mines, receiving less than the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade. Finally, it would end the anomaly of Government Whips receiving £1,000 a year as Lords of the Treasury, while some of their seniors are receiving less as political Ministers of the Royal Household. These are only a few of the anomalies which I suggest would be eliminated by this classification. I venture to make one suggestion however which was not made by either of the Committees. It is that this classification would require to be reviewed automatically every few years, at specific dates, otherwise there will be the same reluctance on the part of Governments as has been displayed in the past, to alter the scales, and it is obvious that the importance of various offices must change over a period of years.
I now come to the question of the Prime Minister's salary. Both the 1920 Committee and the 1930 Committee specially recommended that the Prime Minister's salary should be dealt with immediately. The position of Prime Minister in this country carries special responsibility and special burdens. The case for a revision of the salary attaching to that office has been made out time and again in the last few years, and yet nothing has been done. The arguments were put concisely in the following passage from the recommendations of the 1930 Committee:
This is a matter which should be dealt with at the earliest opportunity. Not only is the Prime Minister's remuneration actually less than that of two of his own colleagues but the circumstances of his position render his salary of less value than that of any other Minister. The house in Downing Street which he is practically compelled to occupy is, admittedly, very inconvenient and costly to maintain. He has to provide out of his salary for entertainments which cannot be classified as official entertainments properly chargeable to the Government Hospitality Fund. His position, great as it is, is at best temporary, and it

must not be forgotten that when he goes out of office he probably becomes Leader of the Opposition at a salary of £400 a. year, with no pension, and while his colleagues as ex-Ministers may legitimately supplement their income in various ways, he alone is debarred from so doing.
I believe the case contained in that recommendation is unchallengeable. I will give one more quotation, this time from the evidence of the late Lord Oxford—Mr. Asquith as he then was—in 1920:
I confess I think the Prime Minister is underpaid. I was in office myself continuously for eleven years, almost nine as Prime Minister, and I do not suppose that my experience is in the least unique but I was a much poorer man when I left office than when I entered it. The office of Prime Minister cannot, I think, be discharged properly at the present salary unless a man has private means of his own.
For many reasons it is not in the public interest that an ex-Prime Minister of this great country should find himself poorer as a result of having held office. I think there is a feeling throughout the country and certainly among all who have given any study to this question, that the conclusion stated in the quotations which I have just given must be accepted. If this House in the course of the Debate to-day shows agreement with that conclusion, I trust that the Government will take some action at an early date in regard to the matter.
Lastly, there is the question of the Law Officers' remuneration. This is really a separate problem, and there are no clear recommendations upon it by either of the Committees I have mentioned. I, personally, do not feel competent to say much on the subject, but other hon. Members will probably be able to speak upon it with knowledge. I agree, however, with the findings of the Committee in so far as they consider that the official salaries of the Law Officers should not be more than the salaries attaching to Ministers of Cabinet rank. With regard to the fees which the English Law Officers receive and which come to a very large figure, the evidence is that if those fees were not allowed, it would be doubtful whether the Government would obtain the services of the best men. Then the House must remember that a fairly large proportion of the fees do not come out of the taxpayers' pockets. When cases are won by the ability and skill of the Law Officers the costs are paid by the un-


successful litigants. As regards the case of the Lord Chancellor, it is right to point out that while his remuneration is £10,000 a year his official salary out of the Consolidated Fund is £6,000 a year which, under the terms of my Motion, would come down to £5,000 a year. The other £4,000 a year he receives as Speaker in another place and the effect of this proposal would be to reduce his total remuneration to £9,000 a year.
There is one small point, but one of some importance, with which I should like the Minister who replies to deal, and that is in connection with taxation. The taxation on Ministers' salaries is deducted at source, and, as far as I am aware, it is not competent for them to put in any claims in respect of the deductions in the same way as a Member of Parliament. In the case of junior Ministers in receipt of the lower salaries this system works very unfairly. I can find no reason for it, but I hope that whoever replies for the Government in this Debate will be able to say that, if it is found that there is no special reason for it and that it works unjustly, they will at least consider the question with a view to making an alteration.
In conclusion, I believe there is a general feeling, so far as there can be any general feeling on a subject of this kind, in the country and certainly in the House of Commons, that the time has come to rectify the existing anomalies in Ministers' salaries. There is no necessity for appointing any further committees of inquiry. The position is well known, and I hope that if this Debate shows that there is good reason for criticism of the present position, the Government will not hesitate to act. It has been suggested in some quarters that if there was a strong feeling in favour of a revision the Government might propose alterations which would not come into force until the next Government assumed office. I think that would be a wrong course. If the Government feel that a fair case has been made out for revision, if it appears to be the general wish that revision should take place, I think they ought to take it upon themselves to act at once and bring to an end these anomalies as soon as possible.

4.24 p.m.

Captain CAZALET: I beg to second the Motion.
It is not a Motion which covers a wide field, and therefore I hope that I shall not be guilty of traversing the same ground as my hon. Friend who moved it, but I approach some of the points which he has raised from a rather different angle. In the first place, may I say that I am sorry to see only one Cabinet Minister on the Front Bench to-day when this subject is under discussion. Whether that is due to delicacy, to reticence, or to the fear of a general demand for reduction of salaries, I do not know, but this is one of the few opportunities which we get of letting Cabinet Ministers know what back-bench Members think of their value, as expressed in terms of pounds, shillings and pence. Perhaps something more than the mere question of salary is at stake. We have to consider the position, the dignity and. the independence of those who happen to govern this country. It is difficult, of course, to dissociate the various offices of State from their existing holders, but I would like to assure my hon. Friends above the Gangway that, in the remarks I am about to make, I am thinking of the future holders of those offices just as much as I am thinking of the present holders. Unfortunately for my hon. Friend, not for four or five years, probably not for 10 years, will they have a chance of receiving the benefits which I wish to see conferred on the holders of certain Government offices.
It is always a delicate matter for Ministers to come to this House to propose increases in their own salaries. I believe that if a Government ever does take a decision on those lines, the usual practice is to propose that the change should only take effect when a new Government comes into office. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) when President of the Board of Trade received £2,000 a year, and that during his tenure of office he had the questionable pleasure of moving that his successor should get £5,000 a year. Some of the present salaries date from the seventeenth century and others from the eighteenth century. One was fixed in 1830 and another in 1856, and I think it has been clearly established that these salaries now have little relevance to the duties of the offices to which they are attached. I have studied the evidence of four Prime Ministers on this question. They are


practically unanimous in support of the proposals which we are making to the House.
Before coming to actual figures, I wish to submit certain principles which I think ought to govern the salaries paid by the country to its Cabinet Ministers and other Ministers. First, I think it will be agreed that the salary should be sufficient to enable the holder while in office to be free from any financial or economic worry; that it should he commensurate with what he might earn elsewhere and that it should be compatible with the dignity of his position. In other words, by accepting office he should neither lose nor gain. Secondly, I think it will also be agreed that the salaries of all Cabinet Ministers should be the same. Personally, I would extend that principle to the salaries of Under-Secretaries as well. You cannot really say that one Department is more important than another. It is impossible to judge, from the fact that one Minister may make more speeches in the House of Commons than another, that therefore he should get a bigger salary. It is quite true that the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer hold special positions and have special responsibilities: on the other hand, they do not have Committee work in the House upstairs, and if they are to get any additional salary for their extra responsibilities, I think it ought to be through extra allowances and not through any differentiation in their pay.
Let us suppose for a moment that the Prime Minister wished, as he might easily do, to ask the Minister of Health, after he had performed some function or had piloted some Housing Bill through the House, to take on some very important work at, say, the Ministry of Agriculture. He could not do so to-day without that Minister losing £3,000 of salary. In the same way, if the Prime Minister wished to ask the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department to take on the Under-Secretaryship of Education, it might be that, although that Minister might be the sole representative of his office in this House, he could not do so without asking him, in taking on that job, to drop £800 a year. It is, I think, and it should be, the character of the individual that the Prime Minister considers when he is allocating offices, and he should be free to offer any office to any individual, if he thinks he is suitable

for it, without having to consider the question of what salary he will get by taking that office.
The present system is not fair either to the Prime Minister, to the Minister in question, or to the office itself. It is quite wrong that certain Departments of State should be considered as second-class jobs merely because the salary attached to the Minister or the Under-Secretary is lower than that attached to others.

Sir ALFRED BEIT: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman make any differentiation between Cabinet Ministers with Departments and those without?

Captain CAZALET: I shall deal later with those Cabinet Ministers, who form a special group by themselves. Here again is a subject on which we are all agreed, namely, the salary of the Prime Minister. All four ex-Prime Ministers, Lord Oxford, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), the present Prime Minister, and the present Lord President of the Council, have given extensive evidence upon their experience as holders of the office of Prime Minister, and I think that, without any difference of opinion whatever, they have expressed the view that it is impossible for any Member of this House to hold the position of Prime Minister without incurring very considerable financial responsibilities which the salary of the office does not cover.
As to the figures, if changes are to be made, I think the Government should know what kind of salaries Members of the House think are reasonable in the circumstances. We all agree that Cabinet Ministers should pay tax on their salaries. There are countries where Ministers' salaries are exempt from taxation, but I think that is a totally wrong principle. Personally, I would suggest that Cabinet Ministers should all be paid £4,000 a year as salary and that, in addition, they should get £1,000 for what are known as frais de representation, which, being interpreted, means expenses. It is a principle which already prevails in the case of Ambassadors abroad, and I think it is suitable to and has certain merit in the case of Cabinet Ministers. It means that each Cabinet Minister would receive £4,000 as salary, upon which he would pay full tax, and in addition he would receive £1,000, on which he would not


pay tax. That, in my opinion, would be for certain amenities which he should enjoy. He should be able to entertain to a certain degree, and he should have the use of a motor car. I wish to discourage, and I believe that other hon. Members would agree, the practice—all too common in foreign countries, though I do not say it is very prevalent in this country—of Ministers getting what are known as the "perks" of office. The salary should be sufficient in itself, and that is why I commend to hon. Members' attention and study the idea of a salary in addition to an extra payment for expenses.
Finally, as my hon. Friend pointed out, an ordinary Member of Parliament can, without any great ingenuity, manage to convince the Inland Revenue that the £400 which he receives all goes in expenses which are entailed by his being a Member of Parliament. If any hon. Member has not yet learned how to do that, I am sure there are many other hon. Members who will tell him. In other words, Members of Parliament do get £400 free of tax—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—Well, they are allowed in their tax returns to put their £400. [HON. MEMBER: "No"] I have done it myself for 12 years without any question from the authorities, and if I am wrong, I am sorry to have brought it up. I think hon. Members, instead of contradicting me, had better ask me for a little personal guidance. In any case, hon. Members are allowed to set expenses up to £400 against their salary. I think everybody agrees with that. But that does not apply to Cabinet Ministers or Ministers, and I do not know why. I believe that if any Cabinet Minister or Minister actually took the case to a court of appeal of some kind, he would win, but no Minister has yet done that. Therefore, the £1,000 for expenses which I am advocating would be in compensation for those expenses which every other Member of Parliament is allowed to put against his salary, as expenses to his constituencies, travelling expenses, and so on, and I think it only just that they should have the same treatment as ordinary Members of Parliament.
Now we come to Under-Secretaries, and certainly I would pay all Under-Secretaries, Parliamentary, Financial, and ordinary Under-Secretaries, the

same, all £2,000 a year, with £500 for what are called frais de Représentation. I believe that, although you might possibly get certain anomalies by doing this, those anomalies would not be anything like as great as those which exist under the present system. Then there are those about whom my hon. Friend asked, namely, a group of Ministers who are not Under-Secretaries and who are not in the Cabinet, or who may not be in the Cabinet. For instance, there is the Patronage Secretary.

Sir A. BEIT: I referred to Ministers who were in the Cabinet and who did not have Departments, such as the Lord Privy Seal and the Minister without Portfolio.

Captain CAZALET: The mere fact of holding Cabinet rank entitles you to a definite salary. It does not matter what office you occupy. That is a suggestion which is practically unanimously recommended in all the reports, that all Cabinet Ministers should receive the same, whether they hold office in a Department or not. As I was saying, there is this group headed by the Patronage Secretary. It is difficult for me to deal with his salary when he is sitting on the Front Bench, as he controls so much of our lives, both by day 'and by night. Then there are the Minister of Transport, the First Commissioner of Works, the Minister of Pensions, and the Postmaster-General. The position of these Ministers has changed very considerably since 1920. The Postmaster-General has now the whole of the British Broadcasting Corporation under his control. At any rate, he is responsible for the general direction of policy followed by the British Broadcasting Corporation. The Minister of Transport has the whole of the electricity supply of the country under his control. I only hope that as time goes on he will be able to do more about it than he does now; it is something which has a bearing on the lives of almost every member of the community, and it is an enormous additional responsibility of his office. For these Ministers I would recommend a salary—somewhat above that of Under-Secretaries, certainly less than that of Cabinet Minsters—of £3,000, with £500 for expenses The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is not paid by the House of Commons and, therefore, does not come under our purview to-day.
In the case of Junior Lords of the Treasury, some of them are Household appointments and special cases, but I would say that there ought to be no salary paid to Ministers, if they occupy the positions of Ministers, less than £1,500 a year.
With regard to the Law Officers, the case of the Lord Chancellor has been mentioned, and I think it should be remembered that when an individual accepts the position of Lord Chancellor he undertakes not to go—or, rather, I think there is no instance of a Lord Chancellor going—back to work at the Bar. Various Law Officers of the Crown have gone back to practise at the Bar, but the Lord Chancellor applies a, self-denying ordinance that he will not go back to practise at the Bar, and also, after he has vacated the position of Lord Chancellor, I do not say he is obliged, but he is expected to take his part as a Law Lord in the House of Lords and the Privy Council. Therefore, he fulfils very special functions, and in the evidence given in the report there was no desire in any way to decrease his salary or his pension.
In regard to the Law Officers of the Crown, I am very glad my hon. Friend made clear something which I did not know until I read these reports and which I think a great many other hon. Members might not have known. I will give the instance of the evidence given by the present Lord Chancellor, that the average fee which he received for four years was £15,000, and that of that, £11,000 to £12,000 was not paid by the Crown, but was paid by litigants who brought cases against the Government and who, through the forensic ability of the Law Officers, lost their cases and had to pay costs. I think that makes a very considerable difference when we are considering this matter and when many of us are surprised at the very large fees and salaries which they receive.

Mr. A. HENDERSON: If the Crown had lost any of those cases, the Attorney-General would have got his fee all the same.

Captain CAZALET: I do not want to go into that except to say that the fee for the Law Officers of the Crown are fixed, sometimes at half, sometimes at one-fifth, of what the barristers who are

appearing for the other side would get in the ordinary practice of their profession. They are fixed at a maximum of, I think, £150, whereas very often the fees for well-known barristers go up to £700 or £800. That, I think, answers that point.
Now we come to the question of the Prime Minister, and this is a matter again which one approaches with a certain amount of delicacy. We all know the almost incredible indifference and self-sacrificing attitude of the present. holder of the office towards questions of salary. Personally, I think the Prime Minister should never receive less pay than any other Member of his Cabinet, and if the Lord Chancellor receives £10,000 a year, I think the Prime Minister should receive it also. I do not much care how it is paid, but I think it is very important that the Prime Minister should always be the First Lord of the Treasury, and whether you pay him a salary as First Lord of the Treasury and another as Prime Minister, or whether you pay him. £8,000 as salary and £2,000 for expenses, are details about which I have no very strong feelings.
Then, of course, the question arises of the houses which the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the First Lord of the Admiralty are more or less compelled to live in by the fact that they occupy those posts in the Government. A great deal of evidence was given in regard to the expenses of these houses. In almost every case the addition of a house was by no means a benefit to the holder of the office, but a considerable liability. It might have been well if the wives of ex-Prime Ministers had been called to give evidence, but it was evident that the overhead expenses of the house of the Admiralty and 10, Downing Street are considerable items for those who live in them. The Prime Minister must entertain, and he is put to considerable additional expense to which other Cabinet Ministers are not.
The question of the Prime Minister's salary leads one to the question whether Cabinet Ministers should receive pensions. Here, again, very little evidence was given. The position is very different from what it was in days gone by. There are a large number of individuals to-day who have held Cabinet rank, and there will probably be an increasing number in


future, without any private means. It would be wrong and an intolerable position that a man who has occupied a position of the dignity of Cabinet Minister should, when he goes out of office, find himself with nothing whatever. A single man, no doubt, could fend for himself. A man with a family and responsibilities who has had an income of £3,000 to £5,000 a year, who is suddenly deprived of all sources of income, is in an unfortunate position. It is only an extreme sense of patriotism which prevents them from immediately rushing into print and telling all the secrets of the past four years and their personal views of their colleagues in the late Cabinet. If they do not do that they have in some cases to accept directorships. A Member of this House who has been a, Cabinet Minister, who loses office and accepts a directorship, may become a Cabinet Minister again. It is unfortunate if in the meantime he identifies himself too closely with any sectional interest in the City. But, it may be asked, what are they to do if they cannot either write or take directorships? If they were given a pension there would be less excuse for their commercialising their past experience, either in print or in the City.
My suggestion is that the pension should be based at the rate of £250 a year for every year of office in Cabinet rank. This should not take effect unless the Minister has served three years, and there should be a maximum of five years; otherwise, there might be a tendency and temptation to hang on a little longer in order to get a bigger pension.

Mr. DENMAN: With or without a means test?

Captain CAZALET: If a Minister felt that he ought to apply a means test to himself, there would be nothing against his returning his pension to the State. These pensions should be automatic unless, of course, they were voluntarily surrendered. It is intolerable that an ex-Cabinet Minister should have to go to the Prime Minister belonging, as he almost certainly would, to an opposing political party, and beg him for a pension. The evidence of Lord Balfour and the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs was very strong on this point. Pensions should be automatic and not

dependent on the grace of the existing Prime Minister.

Mr. LOGAN: What would the hon. and gallant Gentleman do in the case of a coalition?

Captain CAZALET: I do not know what the hon. Member's suggestion is. I am trying to make my suggestions general and not particular to this Government. Intimately connected with the question of a pension for the Prime Minister is the question of the Leader of the Opposition. When a Prime Minister goes out of office he automatically becomes Leader of the Opposition. As such, he is in a different position from that of his colleagues on the Opposition Benches. He may, and probably will, become Prime Minister again. It is impossible for him to write to the papers, and entirely wrong that he should take directorships if he to become Prime Minister again. As Leader of His Majesty's Opposition he is part of the constitution of this Houses and I think that he is entitled to a salary of £2,000. That is the salary paid in Australia and Canada.
There are other cognate matters which I do not wish to raise to-day, but which are pertinent to our discussion. For instance, if we are to discuss the salaries of Ministers, some attention should be paid to the duties of Ministers, and there are certain alterations that should be made. In the case of fuel, for example, coal comes under the Ministry of Mines, oil and gas under the Board of Trade, and electricity under the Ministry of Transport. I do not wish to develop that point, but it is worth the consideration of responsible authorities when studying the question of Ministers, their duties and salaries. Very germane to our discussion is the question of the salary of Members of Parliament. I am one of the fortunate people, like most of my colleagues, who have private means, and I can speak, therefore, freely on this matter. Why is the salary fixed at £4001 There is nothing sacrosanct about that amount. In Australia it is £1,000, and in Canada £800.
There have been, and probably are today, Members of Parliament representing constituencies a long way from London, who have to maintain a family home there and live in London, and who have to deprive themselves of some of the prime


necessities of life in order to keep up the dignity of their position in this House. I believe that to be a fact, and I feel that those on our benches can afford to and should say so. If it were possible to raise the salaries of Members of Parliament to £600, it would be the right and wise thing to do, and I would not in the least mind the opposition which would be roused in the country, because it would help to establish the principle I want to see established, that no man or woman should be deprived of the privilege of becoming a Member of Parliament because on the salary of £400 he or she cannot maintain the position.
If the Government intend to do something, all these things ought to be done together. It is a delicate matter to bring up, and I do not suppose that it will come before the House again for another decade. It is a difficult thing for any Government to propose increases in their own salaries. My view is that if they can get a consensus of opinion in all quarters of the House, it should be left to a committee of back bench Members, assisted by Treasury officials, to make definite proposals. The Government would have to accept those proposals, except that they could decrease but not increase the amounts proposed by the committee. That would get the Government out of the difficulty of proposing increases themselves, and they would be able to say that they had thrown the responsibility on the House and that the House had made the proposals. If they do that, I do not think that it need necessarily be left until the next Parliament before alterations are made. The wish to become a Minister in this country is an entirely laudable ambition of any politician. The field is open for all, and none should be denied the prizes because they have no private means. If we can do something in this matter, we shall, I think, have added some small measure of material comfort to those overworked and underpaid Members of the House who are Ministers. We shall have done something more. We shall have done something to maintain and preserve the integrity and independence of those who have the honour and privilege of being His Majesty's Ministers.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. LATHAN: I beg to move, in line 2, to leave out from "possible" to the end

of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
but without incurring any addition to the present aggregate expenditure.
Although in the Amendment there is a measure of opposition to the proposal before the House, I hope that the Mover of the Motion will not consider it presumptuous on my part if I offer him a word of congratulation on the way in which he submitted the Motion and the temperate and persuasive way in which he argued in its support. I am sure the House feels a measure of indebtedness to him for helping them to understand what has been to many of us a somewhat involved and difficult problem. Similarly, the House is indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet), but in a special way for the information he has given to help us in our Income Tax returns. I am not sure whether the hon. and gallant Member is in favour of the proposals contained in the report of the Select Committee of 1920, because, although it was impossible as he proceeded to lay before the House his proposals in respect of particular salaries, to assess accurately what would be the financial responsibility attaching to them, I think that I am justified in saying that ho would go far beyond what was contemplated by the Select Committee.

Captain CAZALET: I gave a figure,. but I am completely indifferent to what the figure is, because if it is right to increase the salaries of Ministers, this country can certainly afford to do it.

Mr. LATHAN: The ability of the country to afford additional expenditure is information of which we will take due note. With very much of what has been said by both the Mover and Seconder of the Motion I find no ground for obejction, and I believe I am speaking not only on my own behalf but on behalf of those associated with me on these benches. The present position is obviously unsatisfactory, and I think is capable of adjustment without any revolutionary action on the part of the Government or those who would be responsible for effecting the change. It is intolerable that hon. Members should be serving the country and this House and find themselves subject to financial as well as other penalties because of their doing so. I would remind


the Mover and Seconder that that condition does not attach merely to Ministers. It is far more widespread, and it might surprise some hon. Members if we were able to inform them of the measure of sacrifice and loss sustained by some hon. Members in the discharge of their duty.
The main point of difference is whether in the present circumstances expenditure incidental to the proposal that is now before the House would be justified. We think it would not be justified, and it is because of that that the Amendment in my name has been put down. While we have indicated that we are quite prepared to consider any action involving the adjustment of the anomalies which exist to-day in so far as Ministerial salaries are concerned, we believe that can be done, and ought to be done, without incurring any addition to the present aggregate expenditure. The Motion is based upon the Select Committee's Report of 1920 and the speeches to which we have listened with pleasure show that that report and the subsequent report of 1930 have evidently been studied closely. It may account for the continued absence from the Library of the House of those documents and the difficulty I have had in obtaining information I required for the purpose of submitting such observations as I wish to make.
I have, however, managed to secure some information from another place. The Select Committee of 1920, composed of 15 members representative of all parties, had before them distinguished witnesses in the persons of Sir Warren Fisher and Mr. Asquith, but it is the report and recommendations of the Committee with which the House will be mainly concerned. They said that while the standard of pay was very different at that date from that which obtained at the date when the rates of Ministerial salaries were fixed, they still did not feel that that time—that was in 1920—was suitable to recommend a general increase, and thus a large addition to money allocated for the payment of Ministers. They confined themselves, therefore, to consideration of the relative positions, and I judged that that is the main object the Mover has in the Motion before us. There was agreement then, and I think there will be to-day, that the position so far the salary of the Prime Minister was concerned was entirely unsatisfactory.

The recommendation of the special committee was that a salary of £8,000 per annum should attach to that position. To that we on these benches would offer no opposition. I recognise the truth of what has been said as to the special responsibilities and expenditure attaching to that position.
The Committee also proceeded to recommend that all other Members of the Cabinet should have salaries of equal amount irrespective of the offices they hold. I am not quite so sure that that proposal is unobjectionable. As I think it was suggested in connection with another aspect of the case by the Seconder of the Motion, we can see without difficulty the possibility of manoeuvring or adjustments if such an arrangement were brought into operation. The main consideration in connection with the proposals contained in the report was that Ministers were to be classified into five classes, with salaries ranging from £5,000, apart from the Prime Minister, down to £1,000. Hon. Members would probably find no difficulty in agreeing in particular cases that there would be justification for a sixth grade or lower salary. That must be made a matter of personal valuation or assessment. Speaking for those associated with me on these benches, there is no special objection to classification. It is the method of procedure adopted in regard to many thousands of responsible citizens in Government and other employment, but if one agrees to the principle itself, it is of the utmost importance that it should be understood that the classified individual and the position should be accurately related. My own disposition is to a system that would involve not a classification of tin individual or the Minister but the classification of the post, so that the occupant of that post, who presumably would not be appointed unless he were qualified for it, would receive the salary attaching to that post. My belief is—and it is based not only upon speculation in regard to the present problem but on experience of similar problems in employment outside—that that practice would be found more acceptable in the long run than if individuals were classified.
The situation to-day in respect of the posts to be provided for is very different from what it was in 1920. There is no longer a salary for the Chief Secretary


for Ireland, but a number of other Ministries have been created in the meantime. Whatever saving might arise from that quarter would be swallowed up by responsibilities accepted in the meantime by the division of, say, the Dominions and the Colonies. There might be some doubt or difference as to the justification for that. Then there is the problem associated with Ministers without Portfolio. I do not think I am exaggerating the feeling there is in several quarters of the House when I say that a note of interrogation will arise in our minds in respect of Ministers such as the Minister for Thought. Just in what category he comes and how he would be classified is a matter of considerable speculation.
Such questions as that apart, no one can justify the anomalies. Certainly we on this side of the House would not seek to do so. It is a little difficult to understand how they have grown up, but research has shown that it is probably attributable to the varying dates on which the salaries were fixed. The salary of the First Lord of the Treasury was fixed in the latter part of the seventeenth century, and apparently is still regarded by the Government of the day as being proper in the present circumstances. There are other salaries dating back to the early part of the last century, and the fixation of the remainder was at various dates from 1851 to the early post-war years. No one desires to perpetuate these anomalies, and it is more than a little strange that successive Ministries and Parliaments have shown a reluctance to deal with them in a very emphatic way. The report of 1930 recommended that there should be a termination of the valuations to which we have indicated objection. I share the feelings already expressed. I resent, for instance, a scheme of valuation which attaches a salary of £5,000 a year to the Minister for War and allocates only £2,000 to the Minister for Education I believe a very large number of my fellow-citizens would take the view that the duties discharged by the one are of equal value and responsibility to those of the other. The Committee recommended that there should be a scaling down of the salaries of the Law Officers, including the Lord Chancellor, who gets double what is paid to other Ministers, and also a pension. I have no feeling personally against lawyers. I have worked with

them for a number of years and I consider them very useful members of society, but, in common with most people, I could contemplate some, downward variation of the payments made to the Law Officers of the Crown, and believe that could be effected without any serious injustice being done either to them or to their successors.
In January, 1930, the Select Committee that was then set up was required to report upon the report of the Committee of 1920. The Committee of 1920 did not consider the time was then ripe for putting into operation their own scheme in so far as it involved any additional expenditure of public funds. The Committee of 1930 took precisely the same view so far as I am able to interpret what is contained in their report. But they recommended that the Prime Minister's salary should be increased immediately. They were not so courageous in regard to the Law Officers, but they said most definitely that any general revision involving increases was in their opinion unjustifiable at the time. That, in my submission, is the position to-day. The party for whom I speak would be quite prepared in happier circumstances to consider proposals involving additional expenditure upon those who serve the nation in this House, but such a proposal to be fully acceptable would not have to suffer the limitations of the proposal which is now before us. I and those associated with we would, in those circumstances, be prepared to contemplate a comprehensive review of the case not only of Ministers but of Members of Parliament, and particularly of the gentleman who serves the House and the country as Leader of His Majesty's Opposition. I hesitate to believe that Ministers of the Crown would consider that their case is more urgent than that of others who serve the country in this House.
To sum up, the position which I and those associated with me take up is this: At a time like this, when many hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens find it necessary to observe the most rigid economy; when multitudes of citizens are living in circumstances in which they regard the meagre salaries of Members of Parliament, let alone those of the Ministers of the Crown, as wealth beyond their dreams; when they


have to observe such economy that the expenditure of a single penny has to be considered; when the least fortunate among them are under the harrow of a means test, which some hon. Gentlemen who will support this Motion would still maintain; when money for urgent social services is withheld; when educational development is restricted; when adequate pensions for the aged derelicts of industry are held to be too great a burden for our nation; when we are warned, also, to contemplate heavier taxation—at a time like this we take the view that, justifiable as is the proposal to adjust anomalies and remove unfairness to the extent suggested in the report and in the Motion, we cannot approve of additional aggregate expenditure out of public money for the purposes proposed.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. BANFIELD: I beg to second the Amendment.
The mere fact that so many years have elapsed since a Select Committee first inquired into this matter, that so recently as 1930 a further inquiry was held, and that up to the moment no steps have been taken in this matter, shows pretty conclusively that it is a very delicate subject. I listened to the two excellent speeches of the hon. Members who moved and seconded the Motion. They pointed out the anomalies which exist, they laid stress upon the duties of Ministers, they showed the hardships which occur in so many cases and the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) declared that if their proposal was right he, for his part, would not take into account the possible cost. Further, the speeches have clearly indicated that a proposal of this kind cannot very well be kept within the limits of the Motion, that if Ministers' salaries are to he reviewed and the question of Ministers' pensions is to be raised it is obvious that the position of hon. Members of this House who are not Ministers must also be brought in.
But we must pay some attention to public opinion and have regard to those whom we represent, and I am satisfied that a proposal to increase the aggregate amount paid to Ministers would not receive very much support in the country. The country would be inclined to say, "It

may be true that there are anomalies, that salaries are not adjusted as satisfactorily as they might be, but there is no reason why Ministers of the Crown should not pool their salaries and arrange a more equitable distribution of the money." To do that would, in my opinion, go some way to meet the needs of the situation. But if we have a proposal such as was put forward by the Seconder of the Motion, embracing various scales and various increases, I feel that millions of people outside would raise very strong objections to salary increases being granted to Ministers. Not only would the objections come from members of the working classes, but also from members of that vast body of lower middle-class people who have extreme difficulty in carrying on at all in these times, who for the riot part have no social services and have no pension—not even the small pension of 10s. a week—to which to look forward to.

Mr. MACLAY: I tried to point out that the position is not likely to be easier during the next few years, that whatever Government brought forward any such alterations would meet with exactly the same criticism as the hon. Member suggests would arise now, and, that being so, does the hon. Member think that the present anomalies should be allowed to continue for an indefinite number of years?

Mr. BANFIELD: I gather that the point the hon. Member puts to me is, whether these anomalies should continue indefinitely, and the suggestion is that they cannot be removed without, providing a greater sum, in tie aggregate, for Ministers' salaries. I suggest, on the other hand, that it might; be possible to remove some of the anomalies by pooling the present salaries of Ministers. That is a practical suggestion. If there is really all this hardship to Ministers they have a possible and practical remedy in their own hands. I feel that hardly any Member of this House can approve of the enormous sum in salaries and fees which the Law Officers of the Crown draw from year to year, and it might be possible to bring those salaries and fees into the account.
I was very much surprised to hear the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham attempt to defend the present practice by


declaring that unless we are prepared to offer the Law Officers these enormous fees, plus salaries, we shall be unable to get the right class of man. I regard that as a very bad argument. I am fairly certain in my own mind that there are many men occupying high positions in the law who would be very pleased indeed to serve as Law Officers of the Crown for many, many thousands a year less than we are paying at the present time. If hon. Members are looking for more money wherewith to pay Cabinet Ministers higher salaries there is something there which should receive their serious consideration.
A point that rather worries me is this. We have in this country old age pensioners, for instance, with only 10s. a week, who are finding it extremely difficult to live at all, and it has been said many times that even the £400 a, year paid to Members of Parliament—less Income Tax and less all their possible expenses—would seem wealth beyond their dreams to many people, and it would be extremely difficult to go to the ordinary man in the street and say, "My friend, we are very sorry for our Cabinet Ministers. They hardly have sufficient to live on, scarcely sufficient to keep up the dignity of their position. Won't you agree to make some contribution towards putting these Ministers of State in a position above want or above any economic trouble or worry."
It would be very wrong indeed if it should go out from this House that the salaries are the primary considerations which tempt men to serve as Cabinet Ministers. Perhaps I am taking an idealistic view of politicians and Cabinet Ministers, but I believe there are in this country to-day men who are quite prepared to serve their country, and that with them the salary is a secondary and not a primary consideration. A good deal has been said about the position of the Prime Minister. It seems to be generally agreed that the Prime Minister is not sufficiently well paid. The argument is that his position entails expenses for entertaining and that kind of thing, which make serious inroads not only upon his salary but also upon his private purse. If that be so, it should not be beyond the wit of the Government to remedy that state of affairs by making some allowance to the Prime Minister for expenses apart from his salary.
Even if the House were to pass this Motion I am satisfied that it would be 10th to see it implemented in present circumstances. We are confronted kith a period of high taxation. The policy of the Government means that there will be no relief from taxation for some years to come. The policy of the Government does not tend to bring great relief to unemployed people or old age pensioners. However inopportune this matter may have been 10 years ago, it is more inopportune now, having regard to the condition of the majority of the people of this country.
We should be doing very wrong indeed if we did not move an Amendment to limit this expenditure. We recognise the moderation of the case that has been put, and perhaps, in some measure, the justification for the Motion, but I beg the House not to take a step which will inevitably lead to the odious comparison that this House is prepared to spend time, and perhaps the money of the country, in remedying an anomaly affecting a few individuals but, when it is a question of remedying the position of, may be, a million people by adding a little money to old age pensions or unemployment benefit, will say: "We are very sorry for you and for the position in which you find yourselves, but we are unable to do anything for you because the country cannot afford to do so." Many people would say that a lot of people are worse off than Cabinet Ministers. Do not let it be said that we are prepared to apply a remedy in one case while saying that we cannot do anything in the other. I hope that the Amendment will be accepted.

5.33 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: All speakers are in agreement so far that there are great anomalies in the rates of salaries of Cabinet Ministers and Ministers. I feel very strongly on this subject. It is a matter which ought to have been dealt with years ago. I can remember that before the War Cabinet Ministers and Ministers found considerable difficulty in making both ends meet, but the value of money is now considerably less than it was in 1913 and 1914, and the scale of taxation is almost doubled. This matter ought not to be shirked by successive Governments for


reasons which were put to the House by the Proposer and Seconder of the Motion. It is difficult to justify an expenditure of more money on Cabinet Ministers or on Ministers generally, because other classes in the community are far worse off. I recognise that there are men in the country who are prepared to serve the country and with whom money is a secondary thought, but, in the interests of good government, the idea that a great country like this should be governed by men who give up their time to it and sacrifice thereby something which might have benefited them or their families in their old age is not satisfactory, and is the reason why I am speaking this afternoon.
I can speak with more freedom than, perhaps, any other Member of the House, certainly than the younger men who may fill offices in years to come. I can speak with greater freedom than Members of either Front Bench, because my Parliamentary life is behind me, and I am much more likely to be superannuated than to get a salary as a Minister. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) mentioned the difficulty of changing Ministers from one position to another when their salaries are not alike. It is not easy for a Prime Minister to go to a colleague who may be Secretary of State for War or one of the £5,000-a-year Ministers, and say: "I want your help in the Ministry of Labour," or "I want you to go to the Ministry of Agriculture. You will drop £3,000 a year." It is not only important to the Minister himself but to his family, and to the children whom he may be educating, and there is also the Super-tax which he will be called upon to pay out of his reduced salary. All those things may make it extremely difficult for a Prime Minister to call upon a colleague to take another post.
A clear case occurred in the last Parliament. The present Prime Minister, when he was Lord President of the Council, was the head of the largest party in the State. He obviously had great influence as to whom he could nominate for the great posts of the State. He had a house in Downing Street which cost a considerable sum of money to keep up, but he was paid £2,000 a year, while a Secretary of State had £5,000 a year. As the head of the largest party in the

State he had to do a good deal of entertaining in addition to his other expenses. That state of affairs is absurd. All Ministers, whatever their office, should have equal status and should receive the same pay. You would thus get away from that difficulty of asking a Member of the Cabinet to transfer hip work from one Department to another.
In this country we are indeed fortunate, in that we have a lot of men and women who come into this House because they are interested in politics or are altruistic enough to want to be of service to the community. There is a certain number of what I may call professional politicians. It is difficult to define the term " professional politician," but most of us know a professional politician when we meet him. The great majority of people come into this House with the idea of service. But that does not mean that they have private means. They have to live, and if they have not private means they may have to search for directorships; or perhaps they get into Parliament in order that they may receive higher fees for lectures. All those things are undesirable. In order to get the most efficient administration of the country, adequate payment as a remuneration should be given to Ministers. It is unthinkable that after years spent in the public service a man who has been in the Government for many years should look forward to a future in straitened circumstances. I appeal to anybody who has been in the position of receiving a large salary like £5,000 a year. They cannot save against old age on a sum like that.
If a Member of this House has the important position of Secretary of State, he has certain responsibilities, entailing expenditure, on behalf of himself and his family. He has to maintain some sort of position. In view of the taxation which exists to-day I do not believe that it is possible for any man, even if he is a considerable period in office as Secretary of State, to lay aside sufficient money so that in old age he can be free from anxiety of all kinds. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chippenham mentioned pensions for Ministers. In the Civil Service and the Army and Navy, men who have served the State receive a pension. It is just as necessary, if it is not mere necessary, that men who have devoted their lives to governing the country, and who probably might


have made a great deal more outside the House of Commons, or outside the Government, should have similar consideration. It is essential that there should be some form of deferred payment in the way of pension, perhaps in the way suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend, so much a year for each year of service.
It is difficult, in arguing a, case of this kind, not to come to personalities. Many of us had the honour of serving in the same House with the late Lord Oxford and Asquith. Lord Asquith's transcendent abilities would have earned him a large capital sum on which to retire, if he had either continued his work at the Bar or had gone into business. Nobody would deny that. Yet when Lord Asquith had given up his Prime Ministership, after something like nine years, he was so hard up that—I do not think it is indelicate to say—many of his friends helped him to tide over some of his difficulties. That is a scandal, that a man who has been Prime Minister of this country should not have enough to live on. That is why I am speaking so strongly this afternoon.
What is the alternative? Mention was made of reminiscences. I see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) sitting on the Front Opposition Bench. His book was one of the most interesting books I have read for a long time, but I hate the idea of an ex-Minister of the Crown having to produce something rather highly coloured. If it is not highly coloured it will not sell. I say in front of his face—I would not have said it if he had not been here—that I do not like an ex-Prime Minister writing for the syndicated Press of America for gain. I should have liked him to have been able to put that on one side. No Prime Minister, not being so fortunately situated as the right hon. Gentleman, should be in a position of having to sell his experience, perhaps to the syndicated Press of a foreign country.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Ex-Presidents of the United States of America have done exactly the same.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: I do not think that makes any difference at all. It is very unfortunate. I do not know whether Presidents of the United

States of America have pensions or not. That is not my argument. The point is that I do not think any man ought to he put in the position of having to do it. I believe that the present Government could bring about this reform far better than hon. Gentlemen opposite. I know it might be said that it was wrong that Ministers should vote themselves increased salaries, or give themselves pensions, when, while others are only getting 10 shillings a week, they are getting as many hundreds. We know that arguments of that kind will be brought forward, but, if we believe it, to be right, and in the best interests of the country, we have to take that risk. And for goodness' sake do not let us have any more Royal Commissions, do not let us have Any more Select Committees. Everything is known about the matter. Let us try to get agreement between the parties, to get them to work together and agree upon a policy. Do not let us say, "Put it off"; do not let this be another academic question which will crop up, perhaps, on a private Member's Motion next year; let us do something; and I think that this is the time at which to do it.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. ERNEST EVANS: My excuse for intervening in this Debate is that I had the privilege of being a member of the Select Committee which in 1930 examined the question involved in the Motion. Our terms of reference were very limited; we were only asked to consider the report that had been made in 1920, and see whether any modifications were necessary as a result of what had intervened between 1920 and 1930. Our report, like those of other committees on which I have sat, has never produced any result, but this is a matter of some importance, and I think we might expect some results from the Government at the present time. There are some matters on which private Members of the House of Commons may properly expect to receive a lead from the Government, but there are other occasions upon which private Members may give a lead to the Government, and I think that this is an example. I hope the House will give expression to-day to an opinion to which the Government will give effect, because it is called the National Government, and this is its first year of office, and if a National Government in its first year of office cannot do


this, I am afraid that no other Government will do it for many years to come.
To my mind this is a matter of policy, for our attitude towards a question like this really represents our attitude towards our Parliamentary system in this country. I think the question of the salaries of the Prime Minister and the Ministers of the Government is one which affects the dignity and efficiency of Parliamentary government. Among the greatest of the pecularities which exists at the present time is in regard to the salary of the Prime Minister. Every speaker in the Debate has agreed that it is really inconsistent with the dignity of the office of Prime Minister of this great country that a man should be in the position which Lord Asquith described as a position in which a man leaves office poorer than he was when he entered it. There are two possible ways of dealing with the matter. One is to maintain the salary at £5,000 a year and give an extra allowance for expenses. This question was considered by the Select Committee of 1930, and I think that I myself put a question to the present Prime Minister which has a bearing on the point. I asked him whether it was his opinion that it would be preferable to raise the salary from £5,000 to ¢x, rather than to add to the £5,000 a certain amount in respect of expenses. His answer was:
Oh, much better. You know where you are, and I do not think you could estimate the expenses. I think it is much better that you should see exactly what the income is, and that it should be subject to taxation the same as everybody else's.
I rather think that that was also stated by other witnesses. The Committee heard not only the present Prime Minister, but also the Lord President of the Council who was then Prime Minister, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who was an ex-Prime Minister. I do not think anyone will contest the proposition that it is really not consistent with the dignity of this great country that its Prime Minister should be in the position in which he is at the present time. I think we can brush aside the suggestion that this country may not be able to get a Prime Minister by reason of financial considerations. I do not suppose that anybody is likely to refuse the office of Prime

Minister because the acceptance of it might put him to the necessity of applying to his bank manager for an overdraft. I do not think that financial considerations are likely to prevent this country from having the Prime Minister it deserves; I do not think they would prevent the country from having the Prime Minister it wants—and, of course, he may be a very different man from the other. I think the point is that, if you believe in the system of Parliamentary Government, the Prime Minister, whoever he may be, should at least be free from the fretful and vexatious irritations of financial embarrassment.
That has a bearing on another matter in which I personally take a great interest, and that is that, a man, when he ceases to be Prime Minister, should be provided for. Therefore, I personally would welcome the suggestion that the Leader of the Opposition, who in normal circumstances is the ex-Prime Minister, should also have an allowance. I attach very great importance to that for two reasons. The, first is a practical one, namely, that the Leader of the Opposition has to devote a very great amount of time to the business of this House; and the second is that, if you gave a salary, or whatever you like to call it, to the Leader of the Opposition, you would be doing something to affirm what is really inherent in the Constitution of this country, namely, that he is the Leader of His Majesty's Opposition, and would be recognising thereby that the existence of an Opposition in this House is of as much importance to the good government of the country as the existence of the Government itself. That would be a valuable contribution to one of the most important principles of our constitutional Government.
In speaking of the other Ministers, apart from the Prime Minister, it may be that we are entering upon debatable ground, but it seems to me very extraordinary that there should be this differentiation between the salaries attached to different offices. I think, if I may say so without having in mind the present holders of the offices, it is rather ridiculous that a mart who occupies the position of Minister of Labour should have a much smaller salary than the Home Secretary, or that the President of the Board of Education should have the same salary as the First Com-


missioner of Works. Those are only two illustrations of the ludicrous differentiation which exists at the present time between the salaries attaching to different offices. My suggestion, and I believe it is incorporated in the Motion, would be that the differentiation should be based on the principle of giving one salary to members of the Cabinet and another salary to Departmental chiefs. I do not know on what principle the Prime Minister makes up his Government, but it is quite a pleasant occupation to sit on the Opposition Benches and observe the conduct of various Members of the Government; and it is also a profitable occupation, because it gives one a great insight into the character of the Prime Minister and the influences which must control the policy of the pary which furnishes the Government at any particular time. I do not think anyone can be in this House for long without wondering why certain people have been put in certain Departments, or even in any Department, and why certain others have not been given office at all; but I feel that a Prime Minister, in forming his Government, must be embarrassed by the fact that there are certain offices the holders of which he thinks he must include in his Cabinet.
There are certain Members of the House from time to time who may be excellent departmental chiefs, and whom the Prime Minister would like to put in a particular department on account of their qualifications. But, while a man has these departmental qualifications, which would cause the Prime Minister to allot him to a particular office, he might not wish to include him in the Cabinet. On the other hand, there might he other men to whom close attention to the infinite detail attaching to a big office would be very irksome, but whose experience, character and knowledge might enable them to exert a powerful influence in the councils of the nation; but such a man cannot be put into the Cabinet unless he is also put into one of these offices. Therefore, while supporting the suggestion that Cabinet Ministers' salaries should he on one level scale, I think the number of Cabinet Ministers should be reduced.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): If we get into a discussion on the question of the construction of the

Cabinet generally, we shall get a very long way from the question raised by the Motion.

Mr. EVANS: With great respect, I thought that that was the most fruitful topic of discussion, but of course I must obey your Ruling. I only introduced it for the purpose of pointing out that it has a bearing on the question of uniformity of salaries, in the sense that, while we are advocating uniformity of salaries for Cabinet Ministers, we are also anxious to assist and strengthen the arm of the Prime Minister by enabling him to choose for membership of the Cabinet those who possess qualities of knowledge and experience which may be of great value in matters of general policy, even though they may not be very well qualified for departmental duties. I am not very much enamoured of the idea of pensions for ex-Cabinet Ministers. If anything of that nature is required, the one thing to avoid is that it should be on the basis that existed before, when it was open to an ex-Cabinet Minister to apply for a pension but when he applied he had to show that he was in need of it. If it should be necessary at all to make provision for ex-Cabinet Ministers, it should be on a very small scale and should be open to everyone without a. means test.
I approach this problem from the point of view of its bearing on our system of Parliamentary government. The institutions of a nation are the institutions of its people, and we in this country have adopted the system of Parliamentary government as the institution which we believe best represents the spirit and the will of the British people. The success or failure of an instrument of that character must depend upon the faith that the people of the country have in it. If we wish to discard our Parliamentary system of government let us do it, but let us do it calmly and with due appreciation of the possibility that when we are discarding the instrument we may also be destroying the institution. But, if we still believe in Parliamentary government, let us be honest, let us be honourable and let us be generous to the servants of that institution. After all, Ministers of the Crown are our servants. One of the surest tests of our faith in our Parliamentary system of government is the treatment that we extend to our servants.
The British are not an ungenerous people. They have shown their generosity in many directions on many occasions. This Motion does not make a very great demand upon the generosity of the people, but it enables us to put our pride into practice, and the British people, in addition to being generous, are a proud people. I feel that the House of Commons to-day would be doing credit to itself if, either by accepting this Motion or in any other way, it took the opportunity of pressing the Government to take action which declared its belief in our system of Parliamentary government, which is the envy of many other countries and which I believe is one of our greatest assets.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I am not completely in agreement with any of the views that have been put before us. In the first place, I do not accept the view that Cabinet Ministers and others are underpaid and are not fully recompensed for their services. There are differences of payment, but those anomalies run throughout the whole economic system. They are not confined to Parliamentary government or to Cabinet Ministers. Throughout the whole system of society there crop up anomalies which one finds it very difficult to defend. It may be said that the Prime Minister receives £5,000 a year while a person who writes or figures on the stage or the screen receives an income far in excess of that. One could quote barristers who receive large incomes while Members of the Government, who render greater service, may receive less, but viewed from my standard, with my perhaps limited knowledge, limited upbringing and limited outlook, I gasp at the rate at which they are remunerated.
When people talk about £5,000 a year being inadequate it makes me gasp. A salary of £5,000 a year is a tremendous sum, a sum which in my wildest dreams I could not conceive. [An HON. MEMBER: "Less Income Tax!"] Make all the deductions you like. Halve it. Make it £2,500. That is £50 a week. I cannot imagine a sum of such staggering dimensions. I am told about expenses. There used to be a legend in the House that Members of Parliament incurred great expenditure. They had to keep up the

dignity of the House of Commons, and dress and entertain. I am told that the Prime Minister has to entertain at 10, Downing Street. Whom does he entertain? What is the kind of entertainment? I have searched through this 1920 report but I am yet to be impressed about entertaining. Why does he need to do it? As far as I can see, there is no more necessity for the Prime Minister doing all this entertaining than there was for the former Member of Parliament to keep up the so-called traditions. The Labour Government raised salaries and I remember, when I was a supporter of the Labour party, strenuously opposing an increase of salary from £2,000 to £5,000. I cannot follow this idea that Cabinet Ministers are underpaid. Throughout, the length and breadth of the country you have men rendering great service to the community on local authorities without a penny piece of payment.
If we are going into the question of salaries, we have not to start from the angle that the Cabinet Minister is the only man rendering service to the community. We have to examine the subject from the point of view of everyone who is upholding our democratic institutions, and examine the remuneration of the humble city councillors. I think Cabinet Ministers are overpaid. I was not keen to raise this subject. There are important things that we Mould concentrate upon, but this is not one of them, and I was prepared to allow sleeping dogs to lie, but if the question is to be raised I think Ministers are overpaid. If they have legitimate expenses let them at the end of each quarter submit a return of their expenditure to the proper Department. Every State servant has to do it. The permanent chief of the Ministry of Labour makes a return and is paid his expenses. Why should not Cabinet Ministers do the same? I would reduce every one of their salaries considerably.
We have been told time and again that we are passing through difficult times. I often wish they had a means test when I see the Lord President of the Council and his son both in the Cabinet because I do not see how either of them can be hard-up. I think they are very well off indeed. I know this will arouse annoyance, but it is going to be said. We are told that higher salaries might attract better men. In the picking


of Cabinet Ministers if you doubled or trebled salaries you would not often change the occupancy. The Gentleman who occupies the Dominions Office only holds it because his father held office before him. In the ordinary run of political events, if it had not been for that he would have occupied a very minor back-bench position. Everyone knows it. There is nothing outstanding. I should be the last to penalise a man because of his father. I can conceive of a man who had a distinguished father and was also distinguished himself, but I can see nothing in this case.
Both the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) and, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Maclay) made persuasive speeches. The hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham reached an eloquence which I have never heard him attain before, and I only wish it had been in a better cause. He stated that the salary of Members of Parliament was not sufficient and should be £600 a year, but, speaking for myself and. not for my colleagues, do not take the view that Members of Parliament are underpaid. I receive £400 a year as a Member of Parliament, and I suppose that I am one of the few hon. Members in this House who does not receive any added income. In addition to the expense of living in town, I have to keep a home in Glasgow, where I represent a division which contains a terrible amount of poverty. I have a volume of correspondence equal to that of any of my colleagues, and greater perhaps than that of most hon. Members. I live decently and well, and never grumble about my income. I get all the necessaries of life, and I do not envy anybody who is more highly paid. My one great desire is to see the people whom I represent bettered, and before demanding any increase of my salary, at least I ought to demand some kind of increase for the toiling people whom I represent. I do not think that a Member of Parliament, if he exercises ordinary care and observes the ordinary decencies of life, is in any way underpaid.
I was not altogether happy when I used to sit with colleagues in the Labour party because there were Members who also held other positions, thus receiving more than they had previously. I am not keen on making membership of Parliament any more attractive than it is.

As far as hon. Members in the group to which I belong are concerned, no matter what Committee may be set up, we shall oppose any increase in salaries. Hon. Members who sit on this side used to agree with us. The "Forward" which was edited by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) carried on a campaign for years to reduce the salaries of Cabinet Ministers. But I am aware that that editor afterwards became a Cabinet Minister himself and somewhat altered his opinion, but that does not really matter. We were in agreement, and I still intend to abide by that position. The House of Commons, instead of discussing a Motion of this kind concerning Ministers' salaries, which I think are ample, and in many cases, possibly excessive, would have done itself greater credit if it had discussed other people with a greater claim. We shall support the Amendment, and if it is defeated, oppose the Motion.

6.20 p.m.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I intervene at this stage for a few minutes because I do not profess to be able to state the Government attitude on the question, except that the matter which has been the subject of consideration by two Select Committees is one upon which the Government are anxious to know the opinion of the House of Commons. The result of the discussion in the House to-day will be made a matter for serious and perhaps active consideration by the Government. It has emerged from the discussion that there is a great deal of unanimity on many points. It is true that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has delivered a speech in which he has raised practically a single voice against the arguments which have been used by other hon. Members. He will forgive me if I do not follow him into all the things he raised in his very interesting speech, because this is a question of getting the sense of the House.
The Motion is of interest to the Government. The first point which emerges upon which there is agreement, is the question of the Prime Minister's salary. That has been referred to by two previous Select Committees, and my hon. Friends who introduced this Motion and


who treated the subject with such moderation seemed to follow the same line. The hon. Member for Gorbals takes the view that the Prime Minister's office at £5,000 a year is overpaid. Surely the fact is that, taking life as it is and not perhaps as it ought to be, it is a lamentable thing that the four last holders of that office, as one of them expressed it, left office after years of devoted service to the State each the poorer than when they entered it.
The House would no doubt agree that politics of any sort and concerns of State should never be made, as long as the Parliamentary system is in force, a money-making career. The man who goes into politics turns his back upon a great number of the monetary prizes which are held open to other vocations. At the same time, though that is true and right, I do not think that it could be the wish of this country or of the House that these great duties should be performed solely by reason of a subvention paid to the State out of a man's private pocket. For that reason there seems to be in the House general agreement that the office, being what it is and the calls upon it being what they are, is a matter worthy of Government consideration.
Hon. Members have noted the great anomalies and inequalities which exist in the salaries of Ministers. That is due, as the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Lathan) mentioned, to' the fact that these salaries were fixed at different times when the offices were of different importance from what they are to-day. The general view seems to be, if I interpret it correctly, that the recommendation of the Select Committee of 1920 is probably a good line to follow, that when a Minister is a Cabinet Minister he should get the same salary no matter what particular office he holds. It is worth while to point out to the House the fact, of which no doubt hon. Members are well aware, that a great deal of the work of modern government is carried on by means of Cabinet Committees. Therefore, although the Minister may be attached for Departmental purposes to a certain office he has, if he is in the Cabinet, to acquaint himself with a vast variety of topics which lie outside the pale of that Department

altogether. Consequently Members of the Cabinet have to work very hard upon matters quite distinct from their own Departments. As they share the responsibility, there seems to be a good case for some equalisation in the emoluments given to them by the State.
I was greatly impressed by what my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Maclay) said about the Secretary of State for Scotland. He discharges in that office the functions for his own country which are discharged by four other first-class Ministers in England. A vast variety of administration passes through his hands. Here perhaps I am a little at variance with the hon. Member for Gorbals. Apart from his contribution to the Debate, there appears to be a general agreement that the salaries at present paid to Ministers are not excessive. I exclude him from that general agreement. I ask the House to notice one great fact which has considerably altered the value of the salaries since the time they were originally fixed. When a Cabinet Minister in Victorian times received a salary of £5,000 a year, he got away with the greater part of it, because at the time Income Tax was a very small affair; but the immense increase in the incidence of direct taxation has made very striking changes in the actual emoluments received by Ministers. Take a Minister, say, with £5,000 a year who is married and has one child, and suppose he has nothing but his £5,000 a year. The total emoluments he receives, after deduction of Income Tax, are £3,676. That means that by these fiscal changes the salaries of Ministers have in the last 100 years in actual fact undergone a progressive decrease. Therefore, I think that it will be agreed that the emoluments received are not excessive.
The Amendment moved by the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield seeks to confine the action of the House in this matter to a mere pooling of the salaries at present paid. It would seek to fetter the Government in any action they might take by the proviso that the aggregate sum paid in salaries should not be increased. I do not believe that that is in accordance with the wish of the majority of Members who have spoken today, but I can see great difficulties in principle. Why should you take the total sum paid out to-day as the final word of wisdom on what the total of Minister'


salaries should be? The State is by no means a static organisation, its activities develop and multiply in a most surprising fashion, and consequently, to say, "This would always have to do for the future" or, "We pay to-day in salaries to our servants so much, and we are never going to pay any more, no matter what the position is," would be a position that it would be impossible to defend.
The point raised by hon. Members, as to the impropriety of raising Ministerial salaries when there are, alas, so many of our fellow subjects who have not enough, struck a sympathetic chord in the hearts of hon. Members, but I suggest. that that is not relevant to the subject-matter of this issue. This is not a question of voting money for a particular purpose. The real question at issue is that the House are asking themselves, "Are we paying our servants enough?" The State employs a great number of servants, and I think that the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield does not suggest that because there is poverty in some places in this country, we should not pay the civil servants, the industrious employés of the State, adequate remuneration. Surely that would be a position which would be contrary to every principle of Government. The Government in its industrial activities has to employ people and has always tried, and I hope will still try, to be in the front rank of employers in regard to wages and conditions. It is a poor suggestion to say that because there is poverty in some cases we should not pay adequate remuneration.
This is a private Member's Motion and the House is grateful to the hon. Member for raising the matter. We discuss matters which sometimes raise questions of policy affecting the world at large on private Members' Motions, and on those occasions the Government spokesman has to give an indication of the Government's view. This is a question which is properly raised by a private Member, and I can only say that the discussion will be taken into most serious consideration by the Government and may form the basis of action if they so decide.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: The House is indebted to the Mover and Seconder of the Motion for the way in which they

have presented it to the House. They gave us some quite illuminating information in support of their case, but I, and I think other hon. Members, feel a little regret that the hon. Member gave notice of his Motion in such narrow terms. There are obviously other anomalies, in connection with our arrangements in this House, which equally call for attention. For instance, there is the difference between the pay of Minister and Minister in the Cabinet, and you also have the anomaly that in some cases a Minister in charge of a Department actually receives less than his Permanent Secretary. So far as our internal arrangements are concerned—I, of course, make no reflection whatever on the occupants of the office—I feel sure that there is no hon. Member who will logically defend the extraordinary difference in the matter of pay meted out to the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means. One gets £2,500 and the other £1,000. It seems to me a wholly illogical differentiation. Both these occupants serve the House with acceptance to all hon. Members, but there is this anomaly which exists in the case of these two highly respected hon. Members.
There are further anomalies—I will not speak of them in detail—in respect of the very onerous responsibilities which are discharged by some hon. Members of this House for which they get no recognition and no assistance. That is why I regret that the hon. Member has confined his attention to the anomalies which arise in connection with the salaries of Ministers, the Prime Minister in particular, and has not covered a wider field in order to deal with other anomalies which exist. If the Government are going to examine this question, and I rather gather that they will, I hope they will cast their eyes a little further afield than the confines of the Motion and remove some of the glaring and obvious anomalies which cry aloud for attention. Let me deal with another anomaly which occurs in regard to entertainment. I cannot accept entirely what the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) says. The lord mayors of cities and many mayors of other towns —

Mr. BUCHANAN: I used the term "Lord Provosts," and by law the Lord


Provosts of Glasgow and of Edinburgh are given no allowance.

Mr. JONES: I had forgotten that Scotland is rather more economical than England. But in England lord mayors of cities, and very frequently, indeed almost invariably, the mayors of boroughs, get an allowance of £500 or £1,000, sometimes more, to enable them to discharge the function of entertaining which falls upon them in the discharge of their duties. There is an anomaly here. Some Ministers, qua Ministers, never have the responsibility of entertaining; other Ministers, qua Ministers, have a great deal of entertaining to discharge. For instance, the task of entertaining discharged by the President of the Board of Education and the Foreign Secretary simply cannot be compared. The Foreign Secretary, having to meet foreign representatives as he did last week, obviously has to show some hospitality, and, therefore, it seems to me that there is a case for this element of entertaining, but I submit—and here I think the hon. Member for Gorbals will agree—if he is to undertake entertaining at all it ought not to be part of his salary; it ought not to fall upon him personally, but should be an expense incurred through some form of government hospitality, a hospitality which the nation should bear and not the Minister concerned. I am in entire agreement with the Financial Secretary that it is a bad thing that payment for this hospitality should be provided by way of a subvention from the person's private pocket. Wherever it is desirable I think it should be an entirely separate item from the Minister's salary, an item which should fall directly upon public funds.

Captain CAZALET: Does the hon. Member refer to the Government hospitality fund, because there is such a fund, which is used by Ministers for entertaining; or does he refer to private hospitality, which it may be desirable to extend?

Mr. JONES: It is rather difficult to determine at what point Government hospitality begins and private hospitality ends, but I am sure that some modus vivendi can be established whereby the Government hospitality fund should bear a certain part of the burden, leaving the other part of the burden to the Minister

to bear, within certain well-defined rules. In regard to the case of the Prime Minister, I have heard from individual Prime Ministers the inevitable expenses which fall upon them because of their occupancy of No. 10, Downing Street, that I feel very sympathetic to them. What I am going to say now may send many persons who have a high regard for ancient monuments into a paroxysm of anger, but for my part I should get rid of No. 10, Downing Street as a residence for the Prime Minister. It is a hopelessly unsuitable place and a much more modern and acceptable place should be available as an official residence, leaving No. 10 to be used for conferences. There is indeed an anomaly in regard to residences. There is Admiralty House, which I am told is an exceedingly expensive place to maintain, and which entails a personal expenditure on the incumbent of that office apart from any other expenses he may incur on behalf of the Government. The same applies to the residence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The whole question of residences ought to be considered as a separate item from the personal salary of the Minister concerned.
I think I should agree that the Prime Minister's case is somewhat different from that of the rest of the Cabinet, but if you except the item of entertainment and the question of residence, I do not think that there is a case at this particular moment for reconsidering Cabinet Minister's salaries. I express that view with some reluctance, because I have never had experience of Cabinet office, and those who have may throw more light upon the problem. But we must not forget this fact, and it is the dominating consideration for me. This House and the last House insisted for the general mass of the poor of this country that they should not get support except on the basis of a means test. How can a House which persists in maintaining that provision honestly go and increase Cabinet salaries in this way at this juncture? I do not think it is a desirable thing to do; I do not think it is quite a dafensible thing to do. I am all in favour of equalising the salaries of Cabinet Ministers. A Cabinet Minister may apparently occupy what seems to be a light job and a less onerous post than another, but such is the work of the modern Cabinet that Cabinet committees are set up on all sorts of subjects and Cabinet Ministers have to be conscripted for this and the other committee.
In these days, when we insist—I use the word "insist" without any diffidence, for we have challenged it and the House has insisted—that this money shall be spent only after the most meticulous and exhaustive examination, how can we go to the country and defend the proposition that we should increase salaries for those who have themselves conceived that machinery? Therefore, while we are in favour of the general proposal for a readjustment of salaries within the ambit of the present aggregate expenditure, plus special consideration for the Prime Minister, and plus some special form of provision for entertainment and inevitable expenditure of that sort, we are not convinced that there is an urgent case for the application of the Motion proposed by the hon. Gentleman.
I trust there will be no objection to my making a further observation. There are many who dislike speaking about their own salaries, but I do not see why Members of Parliament should be afraid to speak of their salaries. After all, we have a task to discharge and many of us, in carrying out our job of being Members of Parliament, undertake great risks. I do not speak for myself, since I am fortunate enough to have a very safe seat, but there are men who come into this House and who do not know what will be their chances of being in the next Parliament. They make a complete break with their profession, and they do not know what will happen to them politically at the end of four years. The risk is a very big one, and the older the man, the nearer to 45 or 50, the bigger the risk, for then he cannot return to his job and pick up the threads where he left them three or four years previously. Consequently, it seems to me that the case for the consideration of the remuneration of Members of Parliament is as insistent as that of the remuneration of Cabinet Ministers. If my memory does not play me false, I think I once heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for. West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) speak very eloquently any sympathetically on this matter. It is a matter which the House ought not to be ashamed to consider afresh in the most sympathetic terms.
There is one other side of this question which has so far not been mentioned in the Debate. I have never been a

delegate on behalf of the Government at an international conference, but friends of mine have been, and I know of their experience. They have found that the scale of allowance given to our delegates when they go abroad, and have to return hospitality as they have to accept it during that time, is one which is hopelessly at variance with needs. Let us, if we wish, be mean to each other and to ourselves inside the boundaries of our own country—

Mr. BUCHANAN: What you want is that they should have a blow-out.

Mr. JONES: The hon. Gentleman must not talk such nonsense.

Mr. BUCHANAN: That is what you are asking for.

Mr. JONES: No, I am not. If hon. Gentlemen have to go abroad, they must meet other delegates, and very frequently the only opportunity of meeting them is around a table. That is something which cannot be avoided. Our delegates cannot always accept hospitality from other people and not give any in return, and if they return it they must obviously do so on the same scale. If they are not able to do so, their country is, so to speak, held up in an adverse light as compared with other countries. I am sure the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorbals will acquit me of any desire to see men spending public money wildly or fruitlessly, but I want to see our representatives abroad able to maintain their position with dignity and without there being any possibility of adverse reflections upon the dignity of the country which they represent.
In conclusion, we feel obliged to support our Amendment in the Division Lobby to-night, because we feel that the circumstances of the time, while justifying the adjustment in the sense which we indicate, do not justify us in going the whole length of the Motion moved by the hon. Member.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that he discerned on certain matters a degree of unanimity among speakers in this Debate. I would like to emphasise another matter on which I believe there is a great degree of agreement in the House. Speaking for the


Government, my hon. Friend said that on entering a political career a man finally turns his back on great and glittering monetary prizes. I think that is true, except in one case—that of the Law Officers and any Member of the Government who eventually becomes Lord Chancellor. Indeed, I feel it is only a man such as the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) who, in the matter of the remuneration of the Law Officers, would have the skill, the courage, or the charm so successfully to excuse the status quo. The recent promotion of the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip) to be the ruler of the King's Navy, Army and Air Force has exposed the greatest anomaly of all. The right hon. Member is to receive as much as the Prime Minister and yet at the same time he has to sustain the loss of about three-quarters of his former emoluments.
It has always seemed to me to be a fantastic thing that the Law Officers of England should receive the one about four times and the other twice as much as the Prime Minister, without even holding office in the Cabinet, and both, in theory at least, occupying merely minor offices in the Government. In order that the House may realise the precise enormity of this anomaly, may I respectfully recall to their memory some information given to me to-day by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury at Question time? He said that the total emoluments in fees and salaries during the 10 financial years ended 31st March, 1935, were as follows: Attorneys-General, £188,067; Solicitors-General, £114,212. Let the House observe that those figures represent the remuneration received by the two Law Officers for a period of 10 years, including two or three years of acute industrial depression. The House is aware that the Attorney-General, now that his cut has been restored, receives £7,000 per annum, in addition to fees, and that the Solicitor-General again gets £6,000 per annum, also in addition to fees.

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The full scale to which he has referred was reduced at the time of the cuts in 1931, and each Law Officer received

£2,500. When the other cuts were restored, the cuts of the Law Officers were restored only to the extent that the Attorney-General receives £5,000 a year and the Solicitor-General £4,000 a year. That is in addition to fees.

Mr. ADAMS: Any member of the Bar would be very happy indeed to be in receipt of sums of between £16,000 and £20,000 per annum.

Captain CAZALET: May I point out that up to the time the present Lord Chancellor occupied the position of Attorney-General, the average life of a Law Officer in this country was one year and eight months. Thai has to be taken into consideration.

Mr. ADAMS: Yes, a short life and a very profitable one. An hon. Member had contended that a proportion of the fees which go to the Law Oficers come out of the costs paid by those litigating against the Crown when they lose their case, but a very small proportion comes from that source, because in many cases the Crown is not allowed to recover costs. Surely, the more sensible and equitable thing to do, when the costs are recovered by the counsel appearing on behalf of the Crown, would be to return them to the Exchequer. I think I have illustrated the magnitude of this particular enormity. If it be suggested that Law Officers forgo greater remuneration at the Bar by accepting office under the Crown, I must frankly state that that is an argument which has never impressed me. In the first place, it is by no means invariably true, and surely the holding of an office under the Crown should be some compensation for any hypothetical loss. It seems to me nothing short of a slur upon the honour of the members of my own profession to suggest that they are solely concentrating upon lining their own pockets. Moreover, do not other Ministers who had great commercial connections before entering the Government sacrifice them when entering the Cabinet or some subsidiary office? There is also the virtual certainty of a Law Officer eventually occupying some important position on the Bench.
My learned Friends the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General are not present at the moment, but if by accident they read my remarks, they must not re-


gard that which I have been saying as in any way a personal attack. Their ability and integrity fully entitle them to receive as much as any of their predecessors. I hope they will forgive me when I say that the lop-sided good fortune which attends their offices seems to me nothing short of a public scandal. Nor have I ever been able to understand why the Lord Chancellor should not merely be certain of a pension of no less than £5,000, but during his tenure of office should receive double that which the Prime Minister receives. I think those are possibly the worst of the existing numerous anomalies.
There is one other example I would like to give the House before sitting down. Nobody in this House would dispute the proposition that the office of Minister of Labour is a most important one, carrying with it Cabinet rank and consequently involving special responsibility for Government policy. Hon. Members will recall the sad tale of that Ministry, and they will agree that it has become an historic death trap. It is only the possession of peculiar qualities and of a stubborn tenacity of life that has enabled former Ministers of Labour to emerge still breathing from that lethal chamber. But, no less than the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Health, both of whom receive £5,000 a year, the Minister of Labour is to-day directly charged with the welfare of tens of millions of his fellow-citizens. He is the butt of every criticism, the victim of a thousand unpopularities. He has to spend most of his time squaring his shoulders, hardening his heart and keeping a stiff upper lip, while a relatively miserable £2,000 is his reward for voluntarily walking the political plank. I think that £5,000 is handsome, if not excessive, remuneration for any Minister, except perhaps the Prime Minister. There is one Member who, under our present dispensation, is most unfairly treated. I refer to the Leader of the Opposition. If the First Commissioner of Works is allowed to receive £2,000 a year, and the Secretary of State for War, who has now in some sense become subordinate to the Defence Minister, is in receipt of £5,000 a year, is it not reasonable to expect that one who is burdened with so many heavy responsibilities and multitudinous duties might receive public recognition to the extent of £2,000 a year?

Mr. SPEAKER: I hope the hon. Member will not pursue that subject, because I ruled it out of order early in this Debate.

Mr. ADAMS: I am extremely sorry, and I submit to your Ruling. I had not heard, or I had overlooked what you had said. I hope the House will accept my apology for referring to what you have ruled to be irrelevant. I am not in favour of excessive remuneration for any Minister. Although I recognise that to-day it is impossible to resist the plea for the payment of Members of Parliament, I am even ideally opposed to that principle. To sit and to work in this, the first assembly in the world, where nothing but the best is good enough, should be in theory enough reward for any citizen. A fortiori, the duty and privilege of formulating and directing policy with which Ministers of the Crown are invested, and in particular the Ministers in the Cabinet, should go far towards being in itself a full, perfect, and sufficient reward.

7.4 p.m.

Mr. BELLENGER: My qualifications for intervening in this Debate are not very substantial. I have not been a Minister, and if the prognostications of the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) are correct, there is little likelihood of me being so for at least 10 years. I want to deal with the principles of this Motion. It is, that if we are to have Cabinet Ministers, what is an adequate salary to pay them? We on these benches are constantly insisting that the bottom-dog should be adequately paid for his job, and there is no reason that I can see why Cabinet Ministers should not also be adequately paid. Some hon. Members may say that they are being paid too much. I have no doubt that there are people in the constituency of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) who think that even he is paid too much. It is purely a question of imagination. When the hon. Member says he is aghast at £5,000 a year it is simply a question of his imagination, just as it is when one of his constituents, or one of mine, says, "You are getting too much when we give you £400." Personally, I do not think we are getting too much.
When we come to this question of Ministers' salaries we are in honour


hound also to consider the question of private Members' salaries. I know that is not in this Motion, and I do not want to trespass outside it, but the Seconder of the Motion has suggested to the Government that if they consider this question a committee of back-bench Members should be set up to consider a wider aspect than Cabinet Ministers' salaries or the equalisation of those salaries. I have heard the principle of equalisation discussed before, and in different circumstances. I have heard it enunciated from many Labour platforms, and it is interesting to note the way the Mover of the Motion is going when he suggests that Cabinet Ministers' salaries should be equalised. The labourer is worthy of his hire, whether he is the lowest worker in the land, a Cabinet Minister or a Member of Parliament. Who will deny that Cabinet Ministers and Members of this House have very onerous duties? I am a new Member, but I am expected to stay up all hours of the day and night, to carry out my Parliamentary duties. If we are rendering a service to the State we ought to be adequately recompensed for those duties. I hope that the suggestion made by the Seconder will not be lost sight of. It would be a good procedure to set up a committee of back bench Members, guided by the proper officials, to decide what are proper salaries for Ministers and for private Members.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. H. MITCHELL: I find myself in agreement with many things that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) said. We are indebted to the Mover and Seconder of the Motion for bringing up this subject. With the onerous and increasing duties of Members of the Cabinet it cannot be said that they are highly paid in comparison with the remuneration in other fields. In selecting Ministers to carry out the various work that has to be done in the government of the country, men should not be required to accept salaries so very much below those paid in industry. There is a limit to the amount of sacrifice that should be imposed on these people holding high office, and anybody who reads the evidence of the two Committees on this subject must admit that the Prime Minister in particular has been greatly under-remunerated during

past years. I find myself not altogether in agreement with the hon. Member for South-East Leeds (Mr. V. Adams) regarding the position of the Law Officers of the Crown. Everyone will agree that the remuneration that they receive is certainly high, but against that you have to remember that a man who rises to the top of the Bar has spent many years in which he has probably made little or nothing, and only for a comparatively short time is he in a position to earn these high fees. In accepting the post of Law Officer they make in the majority of cases a financial sacrifice, and they are being remunerated in representing the Crown at a lower rate than their opponents who are handling the cases on the other side. There is a good deal to be said in favour of their being remunerated at a high rate. While it is true that other Ministers may make sacrifices on taking cilice and giving up directorships and so on, there are few who are able to earn in directors fees or salaries anything like the few successful leaders of the Bar are earning.
I would favour consideration being given by the Government to the question of pensions. I do not see why a man who has served his country for many years in high office should afterwards, perhaps through having no opportunity to earn money for himself in other directions, find himself in the latter years of his life in somewhat difficult and straitened circumstances. There was a time when those holding office in the Government were mostly people with large private means. That time has passed away. The majority of people now are living under altogether different circumstances. I have looked at the salaries paid before the War to the various Ministers. In almost every case where the office remains the same the remuneration is identical with that which was being paid in 1913. I do not need to remind the House of the immense differences that have taken place since then in the cost of living, not to mention the great increase of taxation which Ministers have to bear. Most consideration has been given this afternoon to the position of the Prime Minister and the principal Cabinet Ministers. I think the attention of the Government should be drawn to the remuneration of the junior Ministers. They are probably worse paid in comparison to the amount of work and


responsibility imposed on them even than Cabinet Ministers in some cases. Some junior Ministers are getting £1,200 a year. They lose their Parliamentary salary, and they probably lose also certain Income Tax rebates which they cannot obtain under their salaries as Ministers and which they might obtain under their Parliamentary salaries.
I welcome the setting up of a committee of back bench Members to draw up definite proposals on the whole problem. I can understand that the Government are naturally diffident about bringing in legislation of this kind, and particularly after the appeals that have been made similar to that of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). We all realise that it is not an easy thing for the Government to make proposals which will mean that its own Members may be more highly remunerated, but I think that some of the arguments that have been advanced go beyond that point. Because certain people in this country are not as highly paid as we would like them to be, I do not think it is an adequate reason for the Government not remunerating sufficiently those who give the best part of their lives to carrying on the work of government, which, after all, has to be done by somebody. I feel that if this change is to be effected, it must be done by a measure of co-operation between the Government and the Opposition. It would be impossible to carry out large alterations in the scales of payment of Ministers without a measure of agreement among all parties. It is a matter which merits consideration and consultation between the parties.
I hope the Government will face the need of getting something done. I believe, further, that a great responsibility in this matter is placed upon the private Members of the House. In most cases, the Government is expected to give a lead. In this case the lead must come from the back benches. Therefore, I welcome the amount of agreement which has been shown in this Debate. Not only ought we to urge the Government to act in this matter and to carry out the recommendations of these two committees, but, in addition, if proposals are made, we ought to justify those proposals and explain them to our constituents. If we do so, I believe we shall find the great

mass of the people of all parties behind such proposals.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. PRITT: I wish to give what little help I can to the House in connection with the position of the Law Officers. Before doing so, I desire to associate myself fully with what has fallen from the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and other hon. Members, on the gross inequality which exists between the earnings and salaries of the class from which Members of the Government are predominantly drawn, and the earnings of the mass of the people. I believe that gross inequality to be at the root of every social evil and to be indefensible and cruel, and, on principle, I would vote against any large salaries for any persons in order to mark my sense of that injustice. That does not prevent me giving what assistance I can to the House on this question of the Law Officers on the assumption that, not only is the labourer worthy of his hire but that some labourers, for some mysterious reason, are worthy of a hire which is 150 or 200 times greater than the hire of many other people who are just as good citizens.
The only reason why I intervene in the Debate is that I may be able to give some enlightenment to hon. Members, from the knowledge which I have gained as a member of the Bar, on the position of the Law Officers. To everybody it will seem that, judged by any scale, they are highly remunerated. It has, of course, to be remembered that anyone who is appointed a Law Officer at once goes right out of private practice and that he cannot resume his private practice until his term of office is finished, if he has riot become a judge in the meantime. That may be one reason for the very high remuneration of Law Officers, but it should be regarded with some caution. Except for the people why incur unpopularity with that section of the community which has the giving out of well-paid briefs—by, for instance, Socialist politics—the experience, ordinarily, of Law Officers is that they return to private practice with greatly increased prestige by reason of the fact that they have been Law Officers. That added prestige far outweighs the consequences of the temporary break in their private practice, caused by having accepted and held Law Officer ships. I do not think therefore the House need feel any particular sympathy


with the Law Officer for having to give up his private practice.

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: Is it not a fact that those who were the Law Officers in the last Labour Government, have been received back into private practice?

Mr. PRITT: If we are to go into personalities, it is a fact that one of them received no briefs of any description for four months after leaving office. I do not want to go into personalities, but since the hon. Member has raised the question I may say that it is also a fact that, while you may be received back into practice, you may not get many briefs because of your politics. I discovered that a few years ago when I was conducting a very well-paid case for a client who had withdrawn it from an ex-Law Officer of a Socialist Government, because he would not allow any money to go near any Socialist. Of course, like most people who hold those views, he was stupid and did not know what he was doing. The difficulty is to know on what scale the payment of Law Officers ought to be based. In practice there are many instances of people becoming more highly paid as a result of having been Law Officers. There are also many instances of people making large immediate pecuniary sacrifices by becoming Law Offices.
I respectfully agree with what was said by the hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams). I do not believe that any member of the Bar would refuse a Law Officership on the ground that his income was being diminished thereby. Apart from the prestige, there is a greatly increased prospect of receiving some of the higher judicial appointments. That is to put the case at the lowest but, regarding the matter from the more honourable point of view, I do not think any member of the Bar would refuse to act as a Law Officer in the service of a party with whose principles he thoroughly agreed. Indeed I think the only instance of anybody refusing a Law Officership, was that of the late Lord James of Hereford. But on what basis is a Law Officer to be paid? As a general rule, while the scale of fees paid in private practice has gone up and down, not only with rises and falls of prosperity but

even with fads and fashions, the fees of Law Officers have been, on the whole, a good deal lower than the fees in private practice. In recent years, however, the fees of Law Officers have tended to rise. There is a common view that the actual salary paid to a Law Officer is by way of compensation for the lower scale of fees, but I believe the historical reason is quite a simple one, namely, that in the nineties of the last century it was found necessary to retain the Law Officers, who had hitherto been allowed to engage in private practice, solely for the service of the Crown. They had to be paid something in the nature of compensation accordingly.
I am not able to give the House much help or enlightenment as to exactly what is the fair thing to do in respect of Law Officers' fees. If the Motion is adopted, Ministers' salaries, in gene rat, are being put on a fairly level sc ale or series of scales. I would suggest that the Law Officers ought to be paid salaries like other Ministers, and no fees. The question of how large those salaries should be is a matter for consideration. There is a great distinction between the position of the Law Officers and that of the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor is an eminent officer who gives up a high position at the Bar, generally speaking, although he may already be holding judicial office. Normally, however, he goes to the Woolsack from a high position at the Bar and he gives up for ever his prospects of earning at the Bar. He cannot go back, whereas the Law Officer, as soon as his term of office is finished, if he does not go on to the Bench, can go back to the Bar in the circumstances already described. I do not desire to travel over any other part of the ground already covered in this Debate.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEY: Several hon. Members have said that the country's dignity is directly bound up with the question of the adequate remuneration of those who hold high offices of State. I desire to support that point of view, and that is Ian gel why I oppose the Amendment. I agree that to iron out some of the inequalities which exist would be a very good work. It is an impossible position that certain Cabinet Ministers, holding highly responsible positions, should be paid lower salaries


than other Cabinet Ministers who are doing no more responsible work. I also think that the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford (Mr. Mitchell), that the salaries of junior Ministers should be increased is worth consideration.
Comparisons have been made between the salaries paid to Ministers in this country and the salaries of Ministers in other countries and also the salaries obtainable in other walks of life. There is one comparison, however, which brings out the fact that the Amendment would not go far enough if we wish to maintain the dignity of the central government in this country. Many local authorities pay their principal officials higher salaries than are paid to Cabinet Ministers and Under-Secretaries. There is one county clerk in Scotland who gets a higher salary than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and a, far higher salary than the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. One does not grudge those salaries to the county clerks, who are hard-working people, but clearly, it is wrong that their standard should be higher than that of the people who are at the centre and who have to carry much greater responsibilities.
No doubt there is a great deal in the point that the "under-dog" requires more consideration. At the same time, I think the Opposition have stressed that point too much. The sum involved is

comparatively small. It is not as if they suggested that we should hand this sum out to the poorer people. No one will be a penny the better if we refuse to give these suggested increases. But I think, as was said in the "Times" this morning, that it is little short of a scandal that a great rich country should not pay adequate salaries to those who are doing its principal business. I think it is vital that the Prime Minister should receive an adequate pension. I am not sure that I like the suggestion that it should be increased according to the number of years of office. I think it would be better to say that when a Prime Minister has held office for a certain period he should become entitled to a certain fixed pension, and that that pension should be of such a kind as to place him beyond the necessity of doing any journalistic or other work for a living. I am not sure that in the case of other Ministers the necessity is so great, but it is clearly undesirable that an ex-Prime Minister should have to do work of that sort in order to obtain a living. I hope the Government, as a result of this Debate, will not hesitate but will take action quickly to end a state of affairs which is no credit to a great country.

Question put, " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 157; Noes, 101.

Division No. 119.]
AYES.
[7.30 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Fremantle, Sir F. E.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Christie, J. A.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Clarry, R. G.
Gibson, C. G.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Cobb, Sir C. S.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W.
Colfox, Major W. P.
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.


Apsley, Lord
Cross, R. H.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)
Hanbury, Sir C.


Assheton, R.
De Chair, S. S.
Hannah, I. C.


Atholl, Duchess of
Denville, Alfred
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Balniel, Lord
Dodd, J. S.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Donner, P. W.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Drewe, C.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Beaumont. Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Holdsworth, H.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Holmes, J. S.


Bernays, R. H..
Duggan, H. J.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Eastwood, J. F.
Hopkinson, A.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Boulton, W. W.
Ellis, Sir G.
Hunter, T.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Elmley, Viscount
Jackson, Sir H.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
James, Wing-Commander A. W.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Erskine Hill, A. G.
Joel, D. J. B.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)


Bull, B. B.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Carver, Major W. H.
Findlay, Sir E.
Kerr, J. G. (Scottish Universities)


Cary, R. A.
Fleming, E. L.
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Channon, H.
Foot, D. M.
Lees-Jones, J.




Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Penny, Sir G.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Spender-Clay Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Loftus, P. C.
Pownall, Sir A. Assheton
Spens, W. P.


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Procter, Major H. A.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Ramsden, Sir E.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral sir M. F.


McCorquodale, M. S.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Sutcliffe, H.


Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Train. Sir J.


Magnay, T.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'nderry)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Turton, R. H.


Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Rowlands, G.
Wakefield, w. W.


Maxwell, S. A.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Salmon, Sir I.
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Samuel, Sir A. M, (Farnham)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
White, H. Graham


Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Scott, Lord William
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Seely, Sir H. M.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Selley, H. R.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Munro, P. M.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Young, A. S. L. (Patrick)


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)



Owen, Major G.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
TELLERS POR THE AYES.—




Mr. Maclay and Captain Cazalet.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Ritson, J.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Groves, T. E.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Adamson, W. M.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Rowson, G.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Salter, Or. A.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Sanders, W. S.


Banfield, J. W.
Hopkin, D.
Sexton, T. M.


Benson, G.
Jagger, J.
Shinwell, E.


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Silverman, S. S.


Bromfield, W.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Simpson, F. B.


Brooke, W.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Buchanan, G.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Burke, W. A.
Leach, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cape, T.
Leonard, W.
Stephen, C.


Cassells, T.
Leslie, J. R.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Charleton, H. C.
Logan, D. G.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cluse, W. S.
McEntee, V. La T.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cocks, F. S.
McGovern, J.
Thorne, W.


Daggar, G.
Maclean, N.
Thurtle, E.


Dalton, H.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Viant, S. P.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Marklew, E.
Walkden, A. G.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Mathers, G.
Walker, J.


Day, H.
Maxton, J.
Watkins, F. C.


Dobble, W.
Milner, Major J.
Watson, W. McL.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Montague, F.
Westwood, J.


Ede, J. C.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Whiteley, W.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Naylor, T. E.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gallacher, W.
Paling, W.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Gardner, B. W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Garro-Jones, G. M.
Potts, J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Pritt, D. N.



Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Quibell, J. D.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Mr. Lathan and Mr. Tinker.


Grenfell, D. R.
Rlley, B.

Main Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 150; Noes, 56.

Division No. 120.]
AYES.
[7.40 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Bird, Sir R. B.
Cross, R. H.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Boulton, W. W.
Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
De Chair, S. S.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Denville, Alfred


Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W.
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Dodd, J. S.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Donner, P. W.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Bull, B. B.
Drewe, C.


Assheton, R.
Campbell, Sir E. T.
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)


Atholl, Duchess of
Carver, Major W. H.
Duckworth W. R. (Moss Side)


Balniel, Lord
Cary, R. A.
Duggan, H. J.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Channon, H.
Eastwood, J. F.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Christie, J. A.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Clarry, R. G.
Ellis, Sir G.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Cobb, Sir C. S.
Elmley, Viscount


Belt, Sir A. L.
Colfox, Major W. P.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.


Bernays, R. H.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)




Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Lees-Jones, J.
Salmon, Sir I.


Findlay, Sir E.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)


Fleming, E. L.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Foot, D. M.
Loftus, P. C.
Scott, Lord William


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Seely, Sir H. M.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Selley, H. R.


Gibson, C. G.
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Maxwell, S. A.
Spender-Clay, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Spens, W. P.


Hanbury, Sir C.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Hannah, I. C.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Harbord, A.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Sutcliffe, H.


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Munro, P.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Train, Sir J.


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Owen, Major G.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Holdsworth, H.
Penny, Sir G.
Turton, R. H.


Holmes, J. S.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wakefield, W. W.


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Hopkinson, A.
Pownall, Sir A, Assheton
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Procter, Major H. A.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Hunter, T.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
White, H. Graham


Jackson, Sir H.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. H.


James, Wing-commander A. W.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Ropner, Colonel L.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)



Kerr, J. G. (Scottish Universities)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES —


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Rowlands, G.
Mr. Maclay and Captain Cazalet.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, c.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Leonard, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Adamson, W. M.
Leslie, J. R.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
McEntee, V. La T.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Charleton, H. C.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Thorne, W.


Daggar, G.
Marklew, E.
Thurtle, E.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Mathers, G.
Tinker, J. J.


Ede, J. C.
Maxton, J.
Viant, S. P.


Gardner, B. W.
Potts, J.
Walker, J.


Garro-Jones, G. M.
Pritt, D. N.
Watkins, F. C.


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Quibell, J. D.
Westwood, J.


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Rlley, B.
Whiteley, W.


Groves, T. E.
Ritson, J.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Rowson, G.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Sanders, W. S.
Wilson. C. H. (Attercliffe)


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Sexton, T. M.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Hopkin, D.
Shinwell, E.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Jagger, J.
Silverman, S. S.



Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Sorensen, R, W.
Mr. Buchanan and Mr. McGovern.


Main Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, in the opinion of this House, the anomalies in the existing scale of ministerial salaries should be removed as soon as possible, that all Members of the Cabinet, with the exception of the Prime Minister, should receive the same salary irrespective of the office held, that the salary of the Prime Minister should be increased, and that all offices held by Ministers should be classified on the lines recommended in 1920 by a Select Committee of this House.

WAR AND NATIONAL EMERGENCY.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. MAINWARING: I beg to move,
That, in the event of an outbreak of war, this House is of opinion that His

Majesty's Government should be immediately invested with whatever powers may be necessary to ensure that the national need shall not be exploited by private interests and profitmongers.
It will be generally agreed that to-day the danger of war is a very real and present one. I doubt whether the responsible authorities in any country rest with easy heads and consciences in these days, because everyone is fearful of what to-morrow might bring. The question to which I draw attention is, therefore, a deeply urgent one. I do not waist it to be assumed that participation by this country in any outbreak of war would receive my support or that of the party to which I belong. Our support of any war would be governed by the factors behind it, the parties participating and


the interests involved. We do recognise, however, that such a situation would constitute a national emergency irrespective of the particular countries and interests that might be involved and that brought it about. Nor need it be assumed that my object in putting forward this Motion and the views of the party to which I belong apply only to wartime profiteering. It would be wrong to assume that our objection is to wartime profiteering only. It should be well known to everybody that as a party we stand for the complete elimination of the principle of profit. We object to it violently, and there is nothing we desire more than to see an end to such a system. Indeed, we would trace the causes of war to the operation of that very principle. We, therefore, take the stand that we would remove profit-making root and branch.
It must be admitted that we have for very many years unceasingly stood for the creation of some authority within the country that would effectively deal with unreasonable profit-making. It may be that this House is unprepared to deal with the wider issue in that way, but I am not without hope that the House may be inclined to deal with profiteering in a condition of national emergency and danger. Even in their own interests hon. Members on all sides may be prepared to join us in preventing profit-making in conditions in which the national interests as a whole are at stake. The term "profiteering" has by common usage come to be applied, not to the principle of a slight rake off or the making of a profit, but to the realisation of excessive profits, not as the result of ordinary business management, or by some skilful management of a higher order, or by improved technique, but from the very conditions in which the mass of the people are being unjustifiably exploited. War conditions offer enormous possibilities in that direction. Indeed, one might say that it offers unending opportunities to the financial and business sharks who inhabit this country in such large numbers. Owners of money, of credits, of material and of businesses of a thousand and one kinds can, and do, in such circumstances hold the nation to ransom. No one would care to deny that fact, because, whatever we may choose to think of our country, and however much we may seek on

occasion to idealise the people, harsh facts are difficult to deny, and the experience of the last War ought to indicate that among the people of this country are some whom none of us would care to honour in the slightest degree.
In contemplating these possibilities, I would like to see the Government clothe themselves with the authority necessary, not to limit profit-making in these circumstances, but to prevent any profit-making whatever, so that the very element of profit should be removed utterly in a condition of mational emergency. Were this country and other countries to adopt that as a measure of national defence, it would constitute the greatest safeguard against war. The vast majority of the interests that would be involved in war in this country would never contemplate a war were they not able to draw one farthing of profit out of it. What could be wrong in a proposition of that character? The owners of finance, of credit, of material and of businesses own the country, and it is their interests that are at stake. Are we then to agree that they must be paid to defend their own interests? I do not know whether we Welsh people are weaker than others, but we are rather inclined to sing, "Land of our fathers." It may have been the land of the fathers, but it is far from being the land of the sons.
To-day the country is literally owned by the interests I have mentioned, and it is absurd, when their very possessions are endangered, that at that very moment they should be allowed to hold the country up to ransom in defence of their property. If it be right to conscript the lives of those who have no such stake and no interests to defend, it should be equally right to use the possessions of these people without allowing them either loss or profit and only to guarantee a safeguard of the interests that they consider to be endangered. Those who join the armed forces carrot be safeguarded from loss in one form or another. If a life is lost, the loss has to be borne by the family, but the property owners whose possessions may be used in defence of the nation are safeguarded and guaranteed their return. One of the features of a war situation is the constantly rising and soaring prices of the necessities of life to the common people. That is so for several reasons. One of the most prominent of them is the opportunity pre-


sented to business men throughout the country, owing to the general condition of scarcity that immediately sets in, of raising prices. When a war situation is created, the pursuance of that war and a continuation of that situation becomes to these men a business proposition and they are concerned to see to what extent prices can be raised and to what extent they can rake off a profit to themselves.
At the present time there are wide ranges of businesses in which widespread plans are already prepared, and they can be applied at any moment if war breaks out. It can be asserted with every confidence that through the whole range of business and industry plans are already prepared for profiteering in the event of such a situation arising. It is their business to do it, and if I were a business man possibly I should do the same thing. That does not in any way justify the Government or this House ignoring the possibility of taking effective steps to prevent such a situation being exploited. Apart from opportunities of profiteering in connection with the necessities of life to the common people there are other factors. There is the provision of the materials for His Majesty's armed forces, and what a history the last War presents us in that respect. I wonder whether the Government would dare to publish a bare statement of facts concerning the tremendous extent to which the national emergency was exploited, and the untold fortunes that were accumulated simply from providing the essential means to carry on the War on the part of the millions of men who were called into the armed forces.
The public outcry on both these counts was not heeded while the War was on. The Government, it is true, were compelled to take certain steps, such as food control and the limitation of prices to some extent. All of it was much too inadequate and exceedingly limited. Indeed it would be admitted at once that no effective steps were taken during the War, with the result that although the Excess Profits Duty which was imposed did take a small rake-off, tremendous sums were realised. The Excess Profits Duty between 1915 and 1932 realised over £1,100,000,000, and after the Government took off that amount one can rest quite satisfied that they retained very much larger sums than that. It is indicated by

the very fact that another estimation has been made that the possessions of people in this country during the War actually increased by £5,000,000,000. The amount of value involved in that is best indicated by the fact that that is a sum which exceeds the total national income of the country for one year. In a period lasting some four years the profiteers in this country accumulated an additional personal wealth of a sum equal to the total national revenue for one year. Indeed it exceeds it by a considerable sum, and does not fall very far short of two years of material production of wealth.
Apart from that, the method of financing the War constituted a further imposition on the people of the country. I will not attempt to detail those methods, but there are sufficient publications, even Government publications, to indicate to what a ghastly farce the financing of that War amounted. This is the spectacle we have. Those who gave their husbands and sons, hastening with grey-heads and breaking hearts to their graves, and those who gave their money rejoicing in their material gain. For one reason and another the operations of the business people in raising prices of the essential means of life to the common people and the exploitation of the Government in the urgency of their need and the financial methods employed all succeeded in hurling us into a vicious circle of soaring prices on the one hand, and on the other hand the vain effort of the general mass of the working classes and the salaried people of this country to endeavour to keep step with rising prices by increasing their wages and salaries, and with wages and salaries always lagging behind.
It is not the workers of the country-who exploit a situation of that kind. The exploitation to which we are referring comes from a section which hon. Members and right hon. Members on that side of the House represent. It is the patriotism of the Government and its supporters that is being challenged. I remember as a miner in 1914 the gesture we gave to the Government when we said through the mouth of our then President, Mr. Robert Smillie, "Let the Government take steps to prevent rising prices, and we guarantee that we will not ask for an increase in wages." That was the spirit of the working classes. In


vain did the Government look to their own supporters to take a similar honourable view of the emergency. During the last War the Government woke up too late, even if it can be said that they woke up at all. In 1949, after the War was successfully or unsuccessfully over, there came the Profiteering Act. At that time the main dangers and opportunities had passed, but even then the situation was regarded as a very serious one.
Even in the advancing months of 1919 when stupendous fortunes had been realised, the President of the Board of Trade then, in introducing the Profiteering Bill, had the effrontery to say that the introduction of that Bill at that moment was itself evidence of a growing social consciousness. It was necessary for the Government which had been in charge of the War for four years to wait until 1919 before they realised that. That consciousness is here to-day before the next war starts, and they need not wait for evidence of growing social consciousness before preparing their plans so that they can be put into operation at the first shot. It is not enough to deal with the situation of a war as it was dealt with on that occasion. In 1919, so widespread were the opportunities taken advantage of by business men, that at one period there were 500 prosecutions per week against men who profiteered. That was when the worst dangers and the wider opportunities had been passed by. Even those 500 only dealt with the small fry, the petty little retailers up and down the country. The big fish had already departed with the spoils.
That experience is more than sufficient justification for this Motion coming forward to-day. The sorrow of a lost son or husband is borne by one generation, but untold generations will continue to pay the financial debts. The patriotic fortune-hunters will go on for ever, so far as we can see, continuing to draw interest on accumulated profiteering. This House to-day has an opportunity of expressing its opinions and desires. It is not enough, as is suggested by the Amendment on the Paper, that we would welcome action from the Government. This is a private Members' day. It is an opportunity on which the average Member of this House ought to say what

he thinks. There is no one in this House who is so entirely hard-faced as to defend a similar state of affairs as we experienced during the last War. This is an occasion when we should tell the Government what needs to be done. I do not think it is right for anybody to give the Government the backdoor method of getting out of the responsibilities which devolve upon them.
There is plenty of evidence of the need for this action being taken, and I am certain there are Members in all parts of the House who will subscribe to the opinion which I have expressed. They may not agree entirely with my own view with regard to profits or general social philosophy, but no man in this House or outside would dare publicly to defend a repetition of the circumstances and the widespread system of profiteering and of exploiting the nation which occurred in the years of the late War. Therefore, I seriously ask the House to carry the Motion on the Order Paper.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. DAGGAR: In rising to second the Motion so ably moved, may I say at the commencement that the need for the consideration of this Motion is a serious reflection on what is generally termed civilisation? That we should be engaged in discussing the need for preventing men from profiteering at the expense of their fellows is deporable. It is almost enough to destroy one's faith in humanity. It must have been on a similar occasion to this that an American writer described man not as a fallen angel but as a promoted reptile. But ray faith in humanity is repaid in the knowledge that it s a minority of men who take advantage of the conditions created by war. There may be an element of danger in this discussion. Personally, I think so. It may create the impression that Members of this House have succumbed to the deadening effect of belie in the inevitability of war. To that belief I do not subscribe. On the other hand, the passing of this Motion would perhaps discourage those persons who would otherwise benefit financially from the existence of war, and for that reason I support it.
The Motion is designed to prevent profiteering in the event of war. As the word is comparatively modern, I desire


for a moment to discuss its meaning. When the Profiteering Bill of 1919 was introduced into this House, the President of the Board of Trade, Sir Auckland Geddes, summarised the provisions of the Bill and gave his opinion of what profiteering really meant. He said that to profiteer was to make unreasonably large profits, all the circumstances of the case being considered, by the sale to one's fellow-citizens of an article which is one, or one of a kind, of common use by or for the majority of the population. Some of those terms are vague. I should prefer the words "elimination of profits" to the word "profiteering." The words "unreasonably large profits" remind me of a difficulty over defining the words "not too bad" A publican wanted his premises renovated and engaged a workman to make the necessary alterations. The man was offered a glass of beer and was afterwards asked by the publican what he thought of it. "It is not too load," he said. The publican inquired, "What do you mean by that?" "Well," said the man, "if it had been any better you would not have given it to me, and if it had been any worse I should not have been able to drink it" I would suggest, instead of profiteering, the phrase" the making of inordinate or excessive profits out of the State's or the consumers' distress or difficulty, especially by contractors and traders in war time."
I regret that the Motion does not provide for the entire elimination of profit-making during war time, because I am convinced that one of the causes of war would be removed were we to eliminate profit-making from the production of the weapons of war. This is not a question of theory, nor do I want to make allegations against the integrity of all men. It is not a subject about which it is impossible or futile to make predictions because we know that owners of capital are prepared to exploit any situation. Experience justifies that observation, and I shall produce the evidence necessary to substantiate it. He would be a strange Member of this House who sought to convince any other Member of the correctness of his attitude towards any question discussed in the House, whether that Member occupied a seat below the Gangway or above the Gangway, but there are people outside the House who pay some attention to

our discussions, and it is in their interests that I propose to give evidence in support of my previous statement.
When the Profiteering Bill was introduced in 1919 an hon. Member observed, "The time to check the profiteer is now," and I repeat that by saying that now is the time to make provision against profiteering in the event of war breaking out. It is interesting to read that Debate, because it shows to what lengths some people will go in order to exploit the nation in time of distress, and we can only imagine what would have been the results had Parliament not restrained them during 1919. The Sankey Commission, which was set up in 1919, reported that the total profits and royalties in the coal mining industry, exclusive of the profits of coke ovens and by-product works, amounted in the five years 1914–18 to £160,000,000, which was £25,000,000 more than the total pre-War capital of the mining industry in Great Britain, £135,000,000. On 24th May, 1917, Mr. Bonar Law stated in this House that he was a shareholder in 14 ships, all of them paying well, and that, taking the average of those ships, the rate of dividend he had received for the past year was 47 per cent., after paying Excess Profits Tax. He went on to say:
I do not say that that is typical of the whole shipping community … but for every £100 I put in I received £47 last year after Excess Profits had been paid." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th May, 1917; col. 2576, Vol. 93.]
It may be, as Mr. Bonar Law said, that that was not typical of the whole of the shipping community, but Sir Leo Chiozza Money states in his book "The Triumph of Nationalisation" that down to the time in 1917 when the Ministry of Shipping took over the entire mercantile marine and made it serve national purposes the shipowners had made a profit of about £350,000,000—that is in the 31 months since the beginning of the War. In 1920 a Select Committee of the House of Commons issued a report which dealt with the suggested taxation of war-time increase in wealth, and it was stated that in 1919 the Board of Inland Revenue had submitted a memorandum to the Committee. In it attention was drawn to an estimate of the increases in wealth which would, at the termination of the War, be subject to a tax were the general capital levy to be imposed. The estimate to which I refer appeared in the "Economic


Journal" of 7th September, 1918, and was made by no less an authority than Dr. J. C. Stamp. He gave the figure of £5,250,000,000 as his estimate of the increase in wealth due to the War. It is true that the Board of Inland Revenue submitted another memorandum in January, 1920, in which it was stated that Dr. Stamp's figure was too high and put the amount at £4,000,000,000, a difference of £1,250,000,000, but even their revised figure showed the degree of profiteering that took place during the War. Those who received that increase in their income ought, in my opinion, to have been forced to pay their share of the War. If that increase had been subjected to a special form of taxation it would have been unnecessary for the people of this country to pay £1,000,000 per day in interest upon a debt largely incurred during the last War.
According to a statement made by the present Postmaster-General, when he was Minister of Pensions, at a meeting of the British Empire Service League on 25th July, 1933, this country and the Dominions have paid in compensation for deaths and disablement caused by the War no less than £1,100,000,000, and he said we were still paying at the rate of £1,000,000 per week. It should be remembered that it was not only the owners of large undertakings who exploited war conditions, because during six months in 1919 there were no fewer than 5,908 prosecutions against retail traders, of whom 229 were sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment, and no one knows the degree to which profiteering would have arisen had not the Government taken certain measures to abolish it. For instance, we were informed by the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) that as a result of forming the Ministry of Munitions they were able to reduce the cost of shells from 22s. 6d. to 12s. each, which saved this country no less than £35,000,000. He also pointed out similarly with regard to the Lewis gun, which was reduced in price from £165 to £35, saving £14,000,000. By various methods they were able to save £440,000,000 for this country. All that shows how difficult it is to mix profit with patriotism, and it shows also the need for this Motion. In the light of those facts, it is no exaggeration to state, as one writer has stated,

that capital with a certain 10 per cent. profit will ensure its employment anywhere; 20 per cent. certain will produce eagerness; 50 per cent. positive audacity; 100 per cent. will make it ready to trample on all human laws and for 300 per cent. there is not a crime at which it will scruple or a risk it will not run, even to the chance of its owner being hanged.
I anticipate similar objections being raised to-day to those which were raised when the Bill was introduced. It was stated that the Bill would create an additional bureaucracy, and that it was an interference with trade and competition. One hon. Member made the brilliant observation that the Government were heading towards the worst characteristics of Soviet rule. Very few people would be influenced to-day by such primitive platitudes. The President of the Board of Trade stated in this House that even a congenital idiot could make profits in wartime. I am sure he will be pleased to know that in a more general sense our great dramatist, Mr. George Bernard Shaw, agrees with him; realising the modesty of the President of the Board of Trade, I am sure he would rather I put it that way than that I said that he agreed with Bernard Shaw. Shaw, in one of his latest plays, says:
The meanest creature call become rich if he devotes his life to it, and the people with wider and more generous interests become or remain poor with equal certainty. Plutocracy is the very devil socially, because it creates a sort of Gresham's law by which the baser human currency drives out the nobler coinage
I agree with the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman. That we should permit these people to make such profits warrants a stronger condemnation and a much more drastic description. To allow profiteering in such circumstances is reprehensible and morally wrong, and cannot be right politically, socially or economically. I contend that the Motion is in the right direction and, if carried, will be a step towards the ultimate prohibition of the private manufacture of arms for profit, and the complete abolition of private trade in the means of destruction and human slaughter.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. MABANE: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:


this House would welcome proposals by His Majesty's Government to take whatever powers may be necessary to ensure that the need for organising the economic resources of the nation to provide adequately for defence in time of peace or in time of war shall not be exploited by private interests
Whatever the House may think of the manner in which the hon. Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring) has presented his case, I am sure the House will agree that he has ventilated a topic of extreme importance at the present time. In the Debate on Defence not so long ago, the Prime Minister in the course of his speech made a comment with which most hon. Members will agree. He said:
I am anxious to say something on what to my mind is far the most important part of these proposals, and that is the subject of supply."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th March, 1936; col. 1841, Vol. 309.]
The hon. Member for East Rhondda by his Motion to-day has enabled the House to review in perhaps as complete a manner as possible this important question of supply. The question of supply is much more important in modern war than it has ever been in the past. Not so very long ago, warfare was something in the nature of a private industry but, as the functions of the State became crystallised, it was necessary for the State to nationalise this industry of war. Even at the beginning of the last War we were apt in this country to think of war as an occasion on which we sent our armed forces to deal with the war, to win it, and in due course to return home, while we paid them for what they had done. As the War progressed, we began to realise that war had become something quite different, that it could not be properly conducted unless the whole nation were regarded as in the War and that it was an occasion on which the nation must spend its united efforts. I doubt whether we have fully comprehended the force of that truth even yet. I think it has been more fully comprehended in Germany. I observe that General Ludendorff, who took such a leading part in the last War, has recently published a book with the unusual title, "Total War." He says that in the modern sphere, the fighting forces and the people constitute one mighty unit. Because war has assumed that character, it is very important that we should con-

sider the problems put before us to-day in the Motion of the hon. Member for East Rhondda.
When I read that Motion I was surprised at its mildness. It appeared to cut right across the protestations so often made by hon. Gentlemen opposite that they desire to eliminate entirely the private manufacture of armaments. I was interested to hear at the beginning of the speech of the hon. Member that he did not intend that to be the case. I should like to indicate at the outset the difference between his position and that taken up in my Amendment. It was clear that the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar) had not read the Motion which he seconded or, if he had read it, he had not comprehended it. The principle difference between the Motion and my Amendment is that the Amendment omits the phrase, "in the event of an outbreak of war." The hon. Member for Abertillery said that the time to proceed with these matters was now, but the Motion does not do it. I sincerely trust that he will therefore throw over the Motion and will support my Amendment. The implication in my Amendment is that this matter has not escaped the attention of the Government and that proposals may be expected on this important matter. A final point of difference between my Amendment and the Motion is that, in deference to the point of view of the junior Member for Oxford University (Mr. Alan Herbert), it omits that awful word "profitmongers"
Let us deal with that phrase, "in the event of the outbreak of war." If we are to neglect to make provision in this important matter until war has actually broken out, we shall take our action too late. As was stated by the hon. Member for Abertillery quite rightly, if this matter deserves attention it deserves attention now, and not in the event of the outbreak of war. What was the experience of the last War? Dr. Addison, in the course of the Debate on 8th November, 1934, told the House something of the experience during the War and of the chaos into which we fell. It was clear from what he said that had provision been made before that War broke out, we should have been able to avoid some of the difficulties which arose. The preamble to the Motion speaks of a possibility of a war. It is unfortunate that we have to use that phrase. The hon.


Member who moved the Motion said that it was a phrase which we must use, but if there is a possibility of war, surely the time to make preparation for contingencies that might arise in the unfortunate event of the outbreak of war is in time of peace, when we are not likely to take decisions hurriedly or in error.
Secondly, my Amendment implies that the Government already have this matter in hand, and I think there can be no doubt that that is true. On many recent occasions the Prime Minister has declared, in debate and in replies to questions, that any exploitation of the national need is repugnant to him, and, indeed, to the Government; and those of us in this House who know the Prime Minister so well will I am sure agree that nothing is likely to be so repugnant to his nature as the exploitation of a national need for private gain. I sincerely hope that this feeling, which I am sure exists strongly in the breast of the Prime Minister, will be translated into strong action. We have also had the recent White Paper on Defence, which refers to this very matter. The reference is not, perhaps, in terms so complete as we should wish, but nevertheless the latter part of the White Paper on Defence is the first concrete evidence we have had of the Government's intention to deal with this very important matter.
The subject of our Debate to-night has another very important significance at the present time. The country, as the Mover of the Motion said, has the strongest feeling on this matter. I am certain that the country is prepared whole-heartedly to support the Government's proposals for defence if it can be satisfied that in the widest sense a national duty is being undertaken, but if there is any suspicion that improper private gain is being made out of the provision for national defence, I fear that the country will be likely to turn against the proposals of the Government. I would also like to suggest that this matter has an important bearing on the cognate topic of recruiting. Nothing is so likely to stimulate the feeling that we wish to stimulate, that a career in any of the Services is a career worthy of any man, as a firm belief that on no account will any provision made for defence result in private gain. I believe that the

patriotic instinct is uppermost in this matter. The hon. Member for East Rhondda appears to feel that he has a complete monopoly of virtue. I have often observed in. Debates that hon. Members opposite arrogate to themselves all the finest instinets that may blossom in the hearts of men—

Mr. MAINWARING: Is not that correct?

Mr. MABANE: Judging from the small number of the party opposite that the country has sent to this House, I think the country has judged that view not to be correct.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: Including Dumbartonshire last week?

Mr. MABANE: Including Dumbartonshire last week—I am taking it by and large. It is very illuminating to observe that Members of the party opposite are apparently consistent in asserting their right to arrogate to themselves a monopoly of virtue, to regard, say, patriotism as a qualtiy that is in inverse ratio to income; bur I am sure that the great majority of Members of this House would not give any credence to such a doctrine, and certainly the country would not do so either.

Mr. MAINWARING: Naturally, what the hon. Member now says is correct, because the majority of the Members of the House do not belong to this party.

Mr. MABANE: I gather that the hon. Member persists in his extraordinary doctrine that patriotism varies inversely with income.

Mr. MAINWARING: Exactly.

Mr. MABANE: That is an important admission to have gained from him. I do not take that view at all. There are some "bad hats" in every section of society, but I believe that in every section of society the main instinct in this matter is patriotic in the best sense of the word, and I am certain that those engaged in industry to-day, whether as employers or as employés, will willingly submit to any proposals that may be made in order to secure that there is no exploitation of this or any other programme of defence; and I would add that, in case there should be any such exploitation, we ought to take powers to deal with it.
If the hon. Member would get away from the class bias that is in his mind, he would find that not only the Members of this House but the people of the country are in general agreement with him on the matter of principle. Indeed, I doubt very much whether there will be any difference in the House to-night on the matter of principle. The hon. Member for Abertillery said that he anticipated that the same objections would be made as were made in 1919, but I think he is going to be disappointed—or rather, I hope it will not be a disappointment to him, because, while I do not want to say anything disrespectful of the House of 1919, probably some of us who are now here and were then occupied in France had very bitter feelings about some of the things that were going on then.
But, while we shall reach with seine ease that agreement in principle, the matter becomes more difficult when we consider in detail how it should be done, and I think the value of this Debate lies in the fact that these difficulties can be explored, and that some of us who humbly sit on the back benches may offer, from our experience and observation, some suggestions which we would ask the Government to consider. In the first place, looking to the past, we have the experience of the War period. I have searched the Statute Book for the period of the War, and I can find no evidence of any very effective or drastic means being then taken to control industry. The only provision that I can find which dealt with this problem is one Section of the Defence of the Realm Act, passed in November, 1914, which empowered the Admiralty or the Army Council virtually to take over any industrial plant if it so desired. That was simple, but, in my view, not by any means complete. Notwithstanding that attempt to provide for the taking over of industry at that time, we know that very great profits were then made, and we also recognise that few things had a more harmful effect upon the morale of the troops than the knowledge of what was happening at home. The experience was common to all countries. I observe, again quoting from the recent book of General Ludendorff, that he says:
The inequality of reward as between the civilian and the soldier in wartime is a powerful fomenter of discontent.

The morale of our troops in France was magnificent, but some of us found it rather trying to have to sit in the trenches arid read of some of the things that were going on at home. There were undoubtedly profiteers. I am not here to defend them; no one could have been more bitter about them at the time than I was; but, as I look back now more soberly, I am compelled to the conclusion that a great part of the large profits then made were made involuntarily—that they were a direct consequence of the inflationary process that was going on. I suggest to the Mover of the Motion that, however anxious a manufacturer might have been not to make profits, the mere sweep of the inflationary process forced profits upon him, and I think that that ought to be a valuable guide to us as to what we should do in the future. The hon. Member himself said that it should be a part of the duty of the Government in future to prevent this rapid rise in prices, and I agree that he is right, but I think he must recognise that that rapid rise in. prices, that inflationary process, was a powerful factor in creating those conditions to which he himself rightly objects. Therefore, I appeal to him and to the House to be guided in this matter by reason and not by prejudice. The problem, as it appears to me, divides itself into three parts. There is, first, the matter of profits that arise directly—the profits of those who contract directly with the Government, or of their subcontractors. Then there are the profits made by the whole of the trading community, who are not, directly or indirectly, contracting with the Government at all; and, thirdly, there is that aspect on which I have just touched, namely, what I may term the monetary or financial aspect of the problem.
When we deal with the first, the matter of profits arising from contracting for the Government, we must recognise that it is incorrect to treat the provision of war material as a thing apart. It is not. As soon as we come to approach the problem—I observe that the Mover recognised the truth of this in an earlier speech—we know that the problem of definition is almost insuperable. He said so himself. What is war material? It is an old question in the House to which he himself rightly said the answer is extremely difficult. In an earlier Debate the right hon. Gentleman the Member


for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) said: if we were to be really logical in our definition and adopt the proposal made from the other side that the private manufacture of armaments should be prohibited, we should find that there was very little left for Socialism. The whole of industry would he socialised, so wide would be the scope of any definition which would be logical. But, while that is true, I think, on the other hand, that, if we impatiently tried to limit our definition too closely and brought within it only those firms which are most obviously engaged in the manufacture of war material, we should be in danger of falling into inequitable practices, because we should perhaps tend to confine our control to a number of very limited industries engaged obviously in the production of war material—

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: There is not a word in the Motion about war material.

Mr. MABANE: No, but I am speaking at the present time. And we should let go cost free quite a number of industries which might be making profits and which ought to make some contribution. Therefore we must not be too logical. We shall probably find, if we want to tackle the job, that we have to apply different methods in different cases and apply the often illogical but quite right methods of the British people.
Let me endeavor to suggest a few methods. First of all when we have to deal with the matter of direct contractors. We have heard something about that in the White Paper. It has suggested the matter in which the contractors are to be controlled. It says that the Government are determined that the needs of the nation shall not serve to pile up extravagant profits for those who are called upon to meet them. I feel that we ought to have some more light on that phrase. I should like to know exactly what an extravagant profit is. It is very difficult to get a definition. When we turn over the page, we find that the Government propose methods whereby the costs and the prices of those who contract shall be controlled. But there is a great difference between a profit on cost and a profit on capital. What may appear to be quite a moderate profit on cost will, at the end of the year, come out an enormous gross

amount as a profit on capital. It is important to bear in mind, too, that the attention of the country will be concentrated, not on the percentage profit on the cost but on the final aggregate figure and, if by any mischance some firms that have contracted produce substantially increased profits, the country will concentrate on those figures. It will not be concerned so much with the bare percentage. It will say, "This man has made £250,000 for himself." There is one other phrase that I should like to know something about in the White Paper. We read, on the one hand, that it is important to retain the good will of industry, for in peace time firms cannot be compelled to undertake contracts on terms which they consider unreasonable. That phrase would-rave read more happily if it read, "on terms which may be fairly considered unreasonable," because there might be a vast difference between terms which a contracting firm considered unreasonable and which perhaps individual Members of the House sitting in a judicial capacity might themselves consider unreasonable. There are some details of organisation later on the page and the House will be very glad if the Financial Secretary could elaborate in some way the organisation that is proposed.
While I am glad to read those proposals in the White Paper, I am by no means satisfied that they are really enough, either in the present situation, when we are engaging in exceptional expenditure on defence, or in time of war, because, as well as the benefit that will accrue to private contractors directly contracting for the Government, I am satisfied that there will be a great benefit spread over the whole range of industry. The expenditure of large sums of money now, or larger sums in time of war, will be pumping the lifeblood through the arteries of industry more rapidly and will increase the price. I think it proper that we should make some provision that those firms which so benefit should make some contribution, and I firmly believe that they would be willing to make a contribution. Let us recognise that, if we are spending money as we now propose, and as we certainly should have to spend it in the case of an outbreak of war, what we spend will have to be paid for either


then or in the future. I sincerely hope that we shall pay at the time and shall not pass on to a future generation a legacy such as was passed on after the last War. We ought to do our best to pay as we go. Industry would not be unwilling to consider some special tax—call it a national defence tax—on excess profits that arose.
I know that, as soon as you begin talking about excess profits, difficulties arise. There is the difficulty of the base against which you are to calculate them, but it appears to me that a base could be found, a better one than we used in the last War, when the immediately preceding years were taken. It might be possible to allow firms to take their best two years in the last 10 years and make that average the base against which to make the calculation. Notwithstanding the difficulties of agriculture and the difficulties of new businesses, industry would not be averse from paying a tax of that kind, because the expenditure has to be met, and, if I were in business, and bad to choose between an increase in the Income Tax and a special tax of this character, I should prefer a special tax of this character. It may be entirely opposed to the views of the Mover of the Motion of those who are engaged in business, but I am certain that the House would find that those engaged in business were perfectly willing to consider this sort of tax, particularly as industry to-day is both manned and managed to a far greater and ever increasing extent by people whom themselves were in the last War and do not want the experience to be repeated.
That leads me directly to my third point, that of the finance of the military problem. If we make some effort to pay as we go, either now or during the course of a war, we shall be doing the best possible thing to safeguard against inflation. I am always horrified when I read in the Press suggestions that we are going to borrow money for this special purpose—that there is to be a defence loan. I am certain that the Government will be making a grave mistake if they engage in anything in the nature of a defence loan. By paying as we go we should be adopting the best possible safeguard against inflation. It was not the rapaciousness of individuals but the mere

operation of monetary inflation which was responsible for the major part of the high profits in the last War. Let it be the purpose of the Government, by the deliberate management of our monetary system, to do their best to maintain a stable price level. I believe that our monetary system has been arranged with consummate skill since 1931, for never before in modern history has the price level remained so steady. If we could insist that the Government did their best to secure a stable price level, one of the principal causes of excess profits would disappear.

Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member will agree that we have maintained that stable price level because we have gone off the Gold Standard.

Mr. MABANE: Certainly. If the hon. Gentleman had done me the honour of listening to, or reading some of my speeches in this House, he would know that I persistently urged that particular point of view.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The previous National Government was elected to save the Gold Standard but failed to do so.

Mr. MABANE: The hon. Member is usually incorrect in his facts. If he will recollect correctly, he will realise that we had gone off the Gold Standard before the Government for 1931 was elected to office. [Interruption.] I do not want to enter into a discussion of the Gold Standard, as I am certain that I should be out of order, and so perhaps the hon. Member will leave that to some future occasion, and allow me to concentrate my attention upon the matter now before the House. It appears to me that there are really two problems, the first of which is to secure the State against any exploitation as a result of the exceptional expenditure foreshadowed in the White Paper on Defence, and that demands immediate attention. The House, I am sure, is glad that certain proposals have been made in the White Paper, but the House would be better pleased still, and I am sure that the country would be if the Government could elaborate a little more the proposals that they are willing to make to secure that the present exceptional expenditure on Defence is not exploited for private purposes. The second problem is to devise means for meeting the much wider problem that would arise


in the event of an outbreak of war. Now is the time to do it, and because I believe that this is the time to do it, I put down the Amendment on the Paper.
I am certain that these problems can be solved within the bounds of our present economic system. This is a proposition with which hon. Members opposite may find themselves in disagreement. I am certain that it can be done better by taking out the elements of compulsion. We can tackle this problem by the cooperation of the whole of industry, not by compulsion. If you adopt this method you are likely to succeed. I gather that the hon. Member who moved the Motion advocates compulsion. I am satisfied that if, first of all, this Government, or any Government, were to adopt officially the attitude that he adopts to those engaged in industry, that they are some kind of unpatriotic criminals, and endeavour to impose upon them measures of compulsion, then, not merely would he not succeed in the object which he has at heart, but he would involve the nation in the gravest possible disaster. Therefore I appeal to the House not to support the Motion in its original terms, but, on the other hand, to vote for the Amendment which stands on the Order Paper in my name and that of my hon. Friends.

8.59 p.m.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR-WEDDERBURN: I beg to second the Amendment.
If there had been no Amendment on the Paper, I should not have been unwilling to vote for the Resolution which has been moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring), but I am glad to support the Amendment because I think that, for the reasons which my hon. Friend has explained, its terms are preferable to those of the Motion. I think that my hon. Friend is already aware that, while I am in agreement with the main part of his observations, I cannot accompany him into one or two of the conclusions which he drew towards the end of his remarks. I do not share the view that the comparatively moderate expenditure upon armaments which is about to be undertaken by the Government is likely to produce such a general expansion of profits over the whole field of industry as my hon. Friend appears to contem-

plate. Within the last, few years the country has experienced a gradual but steady industrial revival, which manifested itself, first of all, in the lighter industries and the distributive trades, and has lately begun to extent itself to the heavy industries, quite apart from any prospect of increased Government expenditure. It is no doubt possible that the renewal of monetary circulation and the increased purchasing power which would result from some further expenditure on the part of the Government might have the effect of accelerating this industrial revival. But I think that it would be quite impossible to calculate what fraction of the earnings of any industry ought to be attributed indirectly to the action of the Government. I believe that anything in the nature of a national defence tax, such as my hon. Friend suggested, would prove in practice to be a most vexatious and inequitable imposition which would produce the greatest amount of friction and discontent, and would not be likely to bring in any substantial return to the Revenue. If anything in the nature of an excess profits duty should ever become necessary, it would mean that the policy of the Government had failed. I am altogether against the idea that we might first allow the profiteer to materialise, while at the same time we should, as it were, prepare an ambush out of which at some convenient moment we should pounce upon him and deprive him of his nefarious gains by a heavy tax. We want to prevent the profiteer from coming into existence at all. As for the profits which are likely to be made by the contractors or sub-contractors of the Government, I am fairly well satisfied for the moment with the statement which is contained in paragraph 59 of the White Paper of the Government, although in respect of one or two facts the statement might have been male more specific. It is declared that,
Control to prevent excessive profits will be effectively exercised by inspection of books, adequate technical postings, audits on behalf of the Stale and arbitration in cases of dispute.
I should like to ask my hon. and learned Friend, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, to explain in his reply what is meant by "adequate technical costings." It is possible that an industry might be operating, say, on a turnover


of £100,000 a year, and making a profit of 10 per cent. on its turnover, that is to say, a net profit of £10,000. If the turnover, as a result of the increase of Government orders, is increased to £1,000,000, a profit of 10 per cent. on that would be £100,000. The firm might reduce the percentage of profit by one-half, from 10 per cent. to 5 per cent., and still be earning £50,000, which would be five times as much as before. I do not think that the public would be satisfied with that, and would rightly demand that the question of what constitutes reasonable profit shall be determined not in relation to turnover but in relation to overhead costs and capital charges.
Before I leave this subject there is one further point I should like to make. Those who have studied the history of the late War will remember that in its initial stages a great deal of difficulty was experienced by the Government on account of the private ownership of certain mechanical inventions whose possessors were reluctant to share their trade secrets with others, or to abandon their rights as patentees. I think it would be in the national interest, and, if necessary, I would be prepared to support legislation to that effect, that the Government should acquire the ownership of all mechanical processes which might he used in the production of any kind of machinery necessary to supply our defensive requirements.
May I now turn, for the remaining part of my remarks to a different aspect of this subject Hon. Members opposite and the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) have devoted the greater part of their speeches to the possibility of excess profits on the part of industrialists. I should like to ask the House to consider what I believe to be the more important question, the excess profits which might be made not by industrialists but by financiers. I have never regarded the manufacturing class as the principal war profiteers. I think that the only manufacturers who profited permanently from the War were those individuals who were fortunate enough, or if you like selfish enough, to go out of business altogether in 1919; who sold out all their interests, realised their gains, and put their money into fixed securities. These individuals, you may say, permanently profited from the War, but I do not think that the manufacturing class as a whole

profited in the long run, because the abnormal gains which they derived from the inflation which took place were equalled, and in many cases exceeded, by the abnormal losses which they suffered from the deflationary policy which was carried out when the War was over. I have always thought that the classes of the community which were permanently enriched as a result of the War were not those who received money from the spending Departments but those who lent money to the Treasury.
During the War we increased our international debt by approximately £6,500,000,000. It is quite impossible to estimate with any accuracy what fraction of that sum was raised by real borrowings from the savings of the people, but I think it is estimated by most economists at something in the neighborhood of £2,000,000,000, which would represent a fairly large proportion of the entire national income for the whole of the War period. Another £1,500,000,000 was raised by the enlargement of the Floating Debt, that is by direct advances from the Bank of England or the issue of Treasury Bills. That leaves us with a balance of somewhere in the neighborhood of £3,000,000,000, which was not raised by taxation, which was not raised by borrowings from the savings of the people, and which had somehow or other to be created ex nihilo. How was this money raised? The banks were persuaded to allow exceptionally large advances against collateral security to those of their clients who were willing to use the money to purchase War Loan. That is to say, the clients of the banks were allowed temporarily a large overdraft. An equal amount of new credit money was placed to the credit of the Government, who immediately spent it on munitions, while at the same time the Government issued an equivalent amount of War stock which became the property of the investor, who could subsequently either pay off his overdraft or sell his War Loan to some other person who had accumulated funds for the purposes of investment.
Let me give an example of what I mean. It may be remembered that in 1916 the Bank of England issued a circular to the public offering to lend money at three per cent. to anybody who would use that money for the purchase of Four per cent. War Loan, which was then being issued by the Government. Suppose I


am an investor who takes advantage of this to acquire £1,000 of War Loan. I deposit perhaps £1,500 of railway debentures as my collateral security. Against that I receive an overdraft of £1,000. £1,000 of new money is placed to the credit of the Government, who immediately spend it, and I receive £1,000 of War Loan. Apart from my original gain of one per cent. interest my position to begin with is exactly even. My new asset of £1,000 War Loan is precisely equal to my new liability of £1,000 overdraft to the bank. Now suppose I save money at the rate of £200 a year and use that money to reduce my overdraft. After five years, that is by 1921, I shall have extinguished my overdraft and shall have become the free owner of £1,000 War Loan. I hope that I am making myself clear. I have given the example of a small investor for the sake of simplicity, but the greater part of the War Loan was, of course, taken up by large financial corporations who could afford to carry a large overdraft in their banking account. That is to say several thousand millions of War Loan was issued to investors who did not pay for it by money which they possessed, but by overdrafts which they undertook subsequently to make good. That meant, of course, an immense amount of inflation.
War-time inflation was not caused by the printing of Treasury Notes. They only represented the additional quantity of small cash for the hand-to-hand transactions of the people, which became necessary in consequence of this vastly greater inflation of new credit money. What happened was that the £3,000,000,000 of new credit money was created out of nothing. The Government pretended to borrow this money from people who did not possess it. Later on, after the War, this pretence of borrowing was converted into a posthumous reality by the annihilation of £3,000,000,000 of new investment capital which had accumulated in the ordinary way and which was absorbed by this huge artificial debt which had been manufactured during the course of the War. That meant that after the War money rates remained exceedingly high and industry was unable to obtain the new capital it so urgently needed for its re-equipment after four years of War wastage. I do not intend to discuss

whether the policy of post-War deflation was right, for that would take us too far from our subject. I wish to confine myself to this observation only—that during the War the public was allowed' and even encouraged to lend money to the Government at very high rates of interest—4 per cent. in 1916, 5 per cent. in 1917 and before the end of the War, 54½ per cent. After the War, those holders of War Loans were not only able to enjoy those exorbitant rates of interest for a very long period of time, but, as a result of deflation and the consequent fall in prices, they found that the real value of their incomes was nearly doubled.
While the attention and indignation of the public were concentrated against the manufacturers or Government contractors who very often lost afterwards more than they had gained, the holders of War Loan, who gained on every side, were very largely ignored. At the end of the War, there were some statesmen, including, I think, Mr. Bonar Law, who wished to correct that state of affairs by means of a capital levy. But a measure of that kind, applied during a period of deflation, would probably have done more harm than good, and would certainly have ruined large numbers of people who had made no profit out of the War. It is of no use first to allow the evils of an inflated debt at exorbitant rates of interest to be incurred, and afterwards to try to correct those evils by a clumsy and ineffectual attempt to redistribute the wealth of the nation. What we ought to do is to prevent the evils of an inflated debt at high rates of interest from ever being incurred.
For that reason I am very glad that the Government spokesman in this Debate, instead of being the new Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, who has to deal with Government contractors, is my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, whose Department is responsible for our financial affairs. The House will, of course, remember that the moment my hon. Friend took office last November, the credit of the country immediately rose to such an unexampled height that we were able to borrow money at an unprecedently low rate of interest. £200,000,000 were borrowed at 2 per cent. for a, fair period of time, and £100,000,000 at only 1 per cent. interest for a rather shorter period. I think that will constitute a very valuable reserve


which might possibly be used, if it should be necessary, for the financing of our rearmament programme. No doubt, as my hon. Friend said, we would all prefer that it should be paid for out of revenue, but next year we are, I believe, to build two battleships, and there are many of us who hope that the proposals for the building of new cruisers and destroyers will be rather greater than those which are contemplated in the White Paper. If we do not find it convenient to meet the whole of this amount out of revenue, it will be very important, if it has to be met out of short-term borrowing, that it should be possible to do that borrowing at the smallest possible cost to the public. Of course, that is true to an infinitely greater extent if the calamity of another war should ever come upon us. I believe that the necessity of keeping down rates of interest is of far greater importance even than the necessity of keeping down the profits of manufacturers who are working on contracts for the Government.
I will conclude by saying that during the last four years the Treasury has acquired a degree of influence over the money market which it never possessed before. It is now able to influence to a great extent the prevailing rates of interest on money which is borrowed. I think it has achieved that power mainly by establishing a control over domestic issues and by the imposition of the Treasury ban on foreign loans. The control which this gives to the Treasury has enabled all the accumulation of credit to be kept in our own country, to be used for our own purposes and to keep rates of interest very low. There is nothing which alarms me so much as to hear men who are eminent in finance and business circles, or even in political circles, contemplate the removal of this Treasury ban and the renewal of the free export of British capital. If this ban on foreign lending is removed, money will inevitably go to seek employment where it will earn the highest yield. That will mean that interest rates in our own country will rise, which would undermine the whole of our industrial policy, and would make it impossible for us to finance either our present expenditure on armaments or expenditure which might become necessary in the event of war, at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer, in order that the burden—to which my hon. Friend referred

—on future generations may be as low as possible.
My main reason for intervening in this Debate and seconding the Amendment of my hon. Friend is to ask the House to assent to, or at least to consider, this proposition that this new influence over the monetary system of our country is one which ought not to be abandoned by the Treasury, but that the Treasury ought to retain in its own hands a power which ought to be preserved and extended.

9.24 p.m.

Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: I am sure that hon. Members who have listened to the Debate will be glad that my hon. Friend the Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring) was fortunate in the ballot, and will be grateful to him for having selected a subject such as the one which we are discussing this evening. I am sure hon. Members on all sides of the House were pleased to hear the speeches that have been delivered so far both from this side and from the other side. It seems to me that the margin of difference between the Amendment and the Motion is very narrow, and I think it would take almost a microscope to find out exactly what is that difference. It would appear that the Amendment is anxious to get the Government to do something, whereas the Motion itself is anxious that the Members of the House by a vote should impress upon the Government the necessity of doing something at once. That seems to me to be the slight difference between the Amendment and the Motion.

Mr. MABANE: The whole difference is that whereas the Motion desires action to be taken only when war breaks out, the Amendment desires the matter to be considered now.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am sorry, but I did not hear that explanation. Although the House is very empty to-night, we are discussing the most vital matter we have had for quite a long time. It can be truthfully said that the subject we are now discussing was the subject that produced a crisis, and a crisis produced the National Government. And when I interrupted the Mover of the Amendment, I think he will admit that I would have been correct if I altered the word "elected" to "formed". The National Government was formed to save the Gold Standard. It did not save the Gold


Standard and what has happened since in the price level, either nationally or internationally, has really been in defiance of the National Government. With regard to what the Seconder of the Amendment said about cheap money, I think that it would be accepted by most economists that the reason we have cheap money is because people cannot invest it at a profit. The fact that you have cheap money is in itself the greatest indictment against this economic order. It is because people cannot invest money as they did for many years in other spheres of investments internationally that you have a surplus on the market, and consequently the Government are able to obtain money cheaply.
One knows that the Government were really driven to face the issue that is contained in this Debate. In this respect I substantially agree with what the last speaker had to say. I am afraid that he cannot deny the statement that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar) when he said that £4,000,000,000 was accepted as profit made and that that was largely made by manufacturers. At that time it would be practically impossible for the rentier to have a substantial return on his war investments, so that the manufacturers made up to about £4,000,000,000 by the year 1919. However, I will not join issue with him when he stresses the importance of dealing with the financiers. To me it is the vital issue; it is the issue that led to the crisis, not only in this country, but throughout the world in 1931. I do not want to use figures to what may be described as a few pounds, but in a general way. I think that most hon. Members would agree that the average rise in commodity prices, if one struck an average between the immediate pre-war and the immediate post-war years, would be round about 120 per cent. That would represent the commodity price level throughout the War.
It is said in influential circles—and I am prepared to accept the figures cited by the last speaker—that the War cost about £7,000,000,000. The persons who invested that money invested it at an average of about 5 per cent. I am leaving compound interest, excessive interest that was charged on re-borrowing and so on, entirely alone. We know through the Budget in post-war years

that it has cost the Exchequer well over £300,000,000 a year. That may include some pensions and things of that kind. Prior to the conversion scheme it was costing £1,000,000 a day. The Government were ultimately faced with this problem. It was in fact the main issue in the crisis. It has now been brought down to about £224,000,000. That is how the Government may have spare money for armaments. They also, of course, repudiated the American debt. That £365,000,000 in interest was paid until 1931. That enormous sum was paid to the rentier for lending money during the War, but that sum did not represent real values, for, meanwhile, we had had a process of deflation taking place. That average level of commodity prices had come down from 120 to 44 per cent., so that that £300,000,000 represented in real values practically £900,000,000 a year.

Mr. MABANE: Surly the hon. Gentleman has made a grave error? The fall in prices was not from 120 to 40 but from 120 above 1914 to 40 above 1914.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The cost of living got up to 180 per cent. above 1914 and came down to 40 per cent. above 1914, which meant that in real value persons were getting twice and three times the value of their investments. I am leaving questions of compound interest and the manipulation of the banks, in which they were never able to set up assets against their borrowings and in which they created paper credit, alone. That enormous weight the nation had to carry up against its productivity year after year in the post-war years, and that is the substantial reason for the volume of unemployment in this country. That is the substantial reason for the depressed areas. That is the substantial reason for the crisis economically throughout the world. It was not carried by this country only but by other countries as well. It was difficult for any nation to escape this problem. Capitalists in recent years found that they were unable to obtain credit from the banks fur industrial purposes because the banks were able to obtain substantially more in interest on war stock than they could hope to obtain if they permitted their capital to be invested for industrial purposes, particularly in view of the enormous fall in the wage level, in relation to the increasing productivity of the country.


They were not prepared to advance money for capital purposes when there was already a surplus of commodities which could riot be purchased, owing to the reduced purchasing capacity of the workers.
The Government ought to face the proposition in another way. It has often been said that if human life has to be conscripted in order to save the nation, then the wealth of the nation ought also to be conscripted for that purpose. I do not attempt to stress that case merely on ethical grounds. If a nation has to save itself in such circumstances, then it is essential that it should, in it own economic interest, say that while war has to be prosecuted the wealth of the nation should be used to prosecute that war. If another war breaks out, which God forbid, civilisation is as much in danger from the economic consequences as from the bombing of civil populations. I stress this point in the hope that it will be appreciated that, on the long view, and considering the interests of the great majority of people, war does not pay economically.
One understands that there is a type of mind which believes in the capitalistic philosophy, which believes in speculation and which does not pause to think of the ethical or economic results. But a multiplicity of individuals each acting for his own ends in this way may mean in the end calamity for the lot. The fact is seldom realised, even by the capitalists themselves, that when a war is over the people are faced with the problem of paying the price. We have the reprehensible state of things in this country that men who fought in the last War and were damaged and who recovered sufficiently to get back into industry for a time, have ultimately found themselves deprived of employment like thousands of miners in South Wales. I do not know whether hon. Members have taken notice of the figures given by the Secretary for Mines recently showing that in 1920 there were 271,000 miners employed in South Wales, and last year there were only 133,000. Those unemployed miners and their families are paying the price of the last War.
Unless the Government are prepared to face these realities and to lay it down that, should war break out, wealth will be conscripted at once, that problem may

be aggravated a thousandfold in the future. I hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will appreciate the economic arguments that we are advancing. I do not deal with the emotional side of the question at all. I think that is appreciated by most hon. Members. To me, however, it is great paradox to find Members on the other side who lost relatives in the last War and who are able to appreciate that aspect of the problem and yet are not prepared to face the economic realities. They talk glibly about speculation on the production of air armaments, about watching exchange prices, and already they are waiting with open hands to take anything in that line that is coming now and to exploit what is not yet a critical emergency but the uncertainty in international affairs. Having accepted the philosophy that profit is right in any circumstances they do not take other considerations into account at all.
When speaking of wealth being conscripted, we refer not only to the profits of manufacturers from contracts, but to the borrowing of money as well. The credit of the nation ought to be at the disposal of the Government. The finances of the nation ought to be taken under complete control and in case of war used as one instrument for the prosecution of war. Money ought not to be more sacred than men. Men, munitions and money—those three agents ought to be conscripted in the event of any future war in order that the prosperity of the country may not unduly suffer.

9.44 p.m.

Mr. HANNAH: There is no substantial difference between hon. Members in various parts of the House concerning the main subject of the Debate. We all emphatically repudiate the idea that money should be made out of war. Yet I cannot help feeling that this Motion, as it appears on the Paper, is deplorable. Taking these ordinary English words, in their ordinary English meaning, I ask hon. Members to imagine their being adopted by this House and read as a Resolution of this House by certain foreign governments. It practically implies that we expect this country to get involved in war if unfortunately hostilities should break out in Europe. The Motion is exceedingly unfortunate in its wording, and so I feel a particular grati-


tude to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) for having moved an Amendment to which the same objection does not apply. I do not accuse hon. Members opposite of in any way whatever being more warlike than supporters of the Government, but on many occasions they are not very careful about the language they employ. What exactly do they mean when they accuse the Government of pusillanimity, cowardice, and weakness in having done nothing to check Japan in setting up the State of Manchouquo, or Italy in going into Abyssinia? What could we have done except go to war? Is that what they want? I cannot help feeling that it is deplorable that nearly every speech that has been made on the other side of the House has contemplated this country getting engaged in war.
Last week end I was in my own constituency, and I was extraordinarily impressed by the fact that everybody whom I met in the street, everybody who came to speak to me, everybody with whom I was in any way brought into contact, rubbed it in, "We don't want to make an alliance with any European country. We don't want war." If that was merely the opinion of Bilston, it would be extremely important to myself and to the Black Country, but I am absolutely confident that in saying, "We will have nothing to do with the squabbles of the European nations," Bilston was speaking, not only for the Black Country and the Midlands and England, but for the entire British Empire and so, with the most tremendous enthusiasm, I pass on that message from Bilston to this House.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: I am sure the whole House is very grateful to the hon. Member for his enthusiastic delivery of the message of Bilston, but is he quite entitled to say that the party on this side stands for war?

Mr. HANNAH: If I ever said anything of the kind, I want to take it back most emphatically. I would have said nothing of the kind, and I most emphatically repudiate it.

Mr. GRENFELL: I am glad, then that we are at peace with the hon. Member once again, but I was under the impression that he criticised this party, and especially the Motion, in which we are

calling attention to the possibilities of war. The hon. Member has been in this House long enough to know that we are very concerned indeed with the possibilities of war, and that it is the chief preoccupation of all serious-minded persons in this House, outside, and all over the world at the present time. Of course, we are not anxious to have war, and we certainly did not insert in this Motion any provocation to war. I do not know why the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) should have dissociated himself from the preamble to the Motion. We on this side do not want to incite to war nor to give the impression that we are resigned to the certain possibility of war in Europe, but you must have a preamble to every Bill, and you should have a preamble to every case that you make out, and in order that hon. Members like the hon. Member for Huddersfield may understand why we moved this Motion, we have framed a preamble which I think explains itself to the majority of Members in this House.
The Motion is intended, not so much as propaganda, as to be both a warning to our own country and a declaration of policy. Hon. Members in this House must say whether they agree with us in this policy or not. My hon. Friends have cited examples of the evils which we wish to avert by the adoption of this policy. There are four hon. Members in the House who recognise the difficulty of differing publicly from the Motion and who have put down an Amendment, but after hearing the hon. Members who have spoken for it, I am convinced that it is not an Amendment; it is a distraction. The hon. Members who have spoken have found themselves on very difficult and strange ground. They approach very tentatively, they come forward and they go back, and they are plainly confused, but they must not be allowed to confuse the House on this very plain issue. It is true that we are proposing something less than Socialism. That is plain to everybody who understands what Socialism means, and we do not mind being told that by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, because he was once, I believe, a very good Socialist [Interruption.] I am sorry to have been misinformed. But we should not be condemned on that ground by hon. Members who voted against the Motion on Socialism a few days ago in this House.
We are proposing consciously—and we invite the co-operation of this House—a deterrent to war and to wax propaganda. We believe, and I think we share the opinion with a large number of hon. Members opposite, that in every country of the world we have a good deal of support. The United States Legislature has been concerned very seriously with a Bill to give effect to the idea that no private protfieering should result from a national effort in war. The French Parliament too has passed, I think, a law dealing with this matter. The hon. Member is quite wrong when he criticises us for not embarking upon legislation, for not seeking to adopt war-time legislation in times of peace.

Mr. MABANE: May I take it then that the hon. Member is satisfied that a national need should be exploited by private interests in times of peace?

Mr. GRENFELL: No, but I am quite satisfied that the Amendment states truly what hon. Members opposite desire, and if he desires to abolish profiteering in times of peace, let him come over here. He has lost his way in coming to this House, and he ought to have come to this side if he is truly a Socialist, because a person who objects to profiteering as a part of ordinary commercial and industrial activity is a Socialist. He cannot be anything else. If a person objects to profiteering, he is a Socialist because he believes in giving in return only as much exactly as he receives, full measure in return for what he gives.

Mr. D. EVANS: Does the hon. Member make no difference between profiting and profiteering?

Mr. GRENFELL: I invite any hon. Member of this House to draw the distinction between the two. We are proposing a deterrent to war and to war propaganda and war provocation, and we offer this Motion for the serious consideration of the House, because we are aware of the very grave danger from the presence among us of the incentive to profiteering or profiting, whichever the hon. Member would prefer, out of the miseries and trials of the people. The glittering prizes are won, not by those who fight, but by those who buy and sell during the abnormal conditions of war. The lessons of the last War have largely been for-

gotten, but the debts remain as a monument of the financial follies which the nation then tolerated. As the hon. Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. Mainwaring) said, we borrowed in thousands of millions and promised to repay in hard cash with interest the fictitious loan so raised. The Motion does not indicate the detailed methods by which that was done nor the categories of profiteers to which reference may be made in a debate of this kind. I think we should call attention to the profiteering by the banks which were among the worst profiteers. They made enormous profits by their system of finance, and they covered up those profits and balanced them against the fall in the price of securities. They did not disclose the full measure of profits they made, but on the return of the value of the securities the appreciation in bank capital was revealed. Enormous profits have been shown even at the present time by the return of Consols to a standard more approaching that of before the War.
Profiteering was also carried on in the most essential services of food and clothing supplies and other civilian necessities, and prices went up all round in consequence. Hon. Members know a great deal of what occurred in the case of coal, steel and shipbuilding. Coal rose in price from 1913 to 1920 by five times, and the receipts of the industry were multiplied five times, even though production was very much reduced. The price of steel and shipping freights were also multiplied five times. I have a record of the three main industries in the part of the country to which I belong. We have in South Wales the coal, the steel and the tinplate industries, and I find that the combined income of these three was multiplied almost four times from 1913 to 1920. It is true that they have fallen once again. In 1920 the combined proceeds of the three industries was £125,000,000. To-day the market has fallen and the production is £52,250,000. There have been inflation and deflation, an opening out and a closing up of credits and prices, and in every transaction, in both the inflationary and deflationary periods, the banks and financiers benefited. This profiteering is not disclosed in the bank returns and records of transactions, and is thus largely hidden from the eyes of the public.
This form of profiteering caused a great concern during the War. For a period during 1916–17 there was unrest and a Commission was appointed to inquire into the causes of it. Something was said during the Debate about cheap money. Money is obviously dear when there are more borrowers than lenders. In time of war, when everybody sees the prospect of profiteering, everybody is willing to borrow money. Profiteering accounts for dear money, but after a war, when there were too few borrowers, the price of money naturally goes down. The reason why money is cheap to-day is that we borrowed thousands and millions of pounds, as has been described so well by my hon. Friend the Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring), and we have now a debt of £8,000,000,000. The country's obligations in a number of various enterprises are higher than they were before the War, and there are not sufficient borrowers for those who have money to lend. We have for the moment cheap money, and that is a sign that the vessel of State has been overloaded and that the whole business of national and private enterprise has been overburdened by the huge debt they have to carry.
There was a great controversy with regard to the conscription of wealth and life during the War. That is an issue the country will have to face. In face of threats of revolt the people of this country in 1916 were persuaded to accept a measure of conscription. There was, however, no conscription of wealth, and the huge burden of debt that has been piled on us is due to that fact. This Motion frankly faces the fact that profiteering and war run together. All down the pages of history we find hard words written of those who have exploited their country's need, who have robbed the soldier of his boots, of his shirt, and of his weapons of defence, and of those who have even supplied the enemy with arms for love of gold. The war profiteer has been commemorated in the parables of all nations. He has been denounced and condemned unless he has climbed too high to be safely attacked. Members on those benches during the War sat in rows of hard-faced men, as they were described by impartial observers who came to see this House. There

they sat entrenched in both Houses of Parliament betraying the real interests of their country and looking for opportunities to enrich themselves, and they have become too high up to be safely attacked. Even though the profiteer is denounced as he deserves to be denounced, he turns up to play his dishonourable part whenever the smell of powder is in the air and Mars and Mammon control the stage together.
Our experience in 1914–18 ought to have convinced us that we cannot run the risk of a similar experience again. The world is not the same world as it was then. You cannot do the things with people to-day that you could do with people then. This policy of anti-profiteering in war-time for which we stand has received some support from the Prime Minister himself. In the White Paper there are suggestions of some limiting form of control, but we want to know how far the Government are prepared to go. The replies given by the Prime Minister to questions do not go far enough and do not commit the Government to anything. The hon. Member for Huddersfield pretends to give us support. The Amendment is only a verbal departure from our Motion, but the hon. Member suggested that a tax on profits should be imposed. He cannot get it both ways. If there be no profiteering, how is he going to get a tax on the war profits? How is there to be any excess profits if there is to be no profiteering? Does he approve of a tax or of the abolition of profiteering?

Mr. MABANE: I distinguish between two things. There are those who are contracting directly, and I suggested that the measures proposed by the Government deal with them. Then I want to go beyond them so that some contribution should be made by the general body of industry that was not directly concerned in contracts.

Mr. GRENFELL: The ion. Gentleman is solely concerned with profiteering in war, but if he wants to abolish profiteering he must deal with all of production because everything is war production in war time. He cannot allow any kind of transaction to escape.

Mr. MABANE: Would the hon. Gentleman mind telling the House how he would do it? In my speech I endeavoured to point out how it could be done. The hon. Gentleman has not made one suggestion.

Mr. GRENFELL: The hon. Member apparently wants me to describe the kind of board which will be set up, but that is not my job. It is the job of the Government. There must be machinery set up, and I would produce my machinery to-morrow. There must be conditions to which people have to conform. It is up to the Government to accept the principle. The Government is responsible for maintaining the front not only against enemies outside, but for protecting the home fronts, the vital fronts. The real strength of the nation is the strength and unity of the front at home. This nation is more peace-minded than it ever was before. It cannot be induced to go to war again for a like cause. It will not go to war unless there are strong guarantees that many of the abuses from which the country suffered between 1914 and 1918 will never be repeated. We learned much in those years. Shall we again fall into the old errors? Will any Government be able to borrow money in Europe in the next war? Can we in this country borrow money to fight for two or three years at the rate of expenditure experienced in the last War? We must fall upon the method of paying as we go. There will be no borrowing in the next war. This country may be able to borrow, but it will not be able to permit individuals in any walk of life to gather riches from the sacrifices of their fellow-countrymen. We hope war may never come to our generation. On this side of the House we shall strengthen every contribution of the Government to establish the peace of the world through collective security. If we are faced with the prospect of war we warn the Government now, as representing the working people of this country—

Marquess of TITCHFIELD: No.

Mr. GRENFELL: The Noble Lord is only deceiving himself.

Marquess of TITCHFIELD: I am not denying the hon. Member a claim to represent the miner, but I represent the working man as a Noble Lord just as well as the miner's representative represents the workers.

Mr. GRENFELL: I am sure nobody tries to represent the worker better than the Noble Lord does, but I claim to represent the miners better than the

Noble Lord, just as he is able to represent Noble Lords better than I am. I mean no offence at all. Profiteering is an insidious form of activity which weakens the strength of the country. It acts like a cancer in the hearts and minds of the people. In this House and outside there are examples of men who undeservedly got rich during the last War. Let us ask the Government to ensure that that kind of thing does not happen again. There is no national strength or security unless every man pulls his weight, and there is a common sacrifice.

10.11 p.m.

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: There has been a wide debate on this very interesting and vital subject. I shall endeavour to recall the House to what is the subject-matter of the Motion, namely, what is well known as profiteering. There may be quarrels about the definition of the word, but it conveys a pretty accurate expression to every hon. Member, and we need not bother about subtleties of interpretation. I find it very difficult to quarrel with the Motion or with the Amendment to the Motion. As it is a Private Member's Motion I do not propose to suggest that hon. Members should vote for one or the other. There is complete unanimity on the part of Members on the other side in agreeing with the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) that profiteering in wartime is against the instinct of the people and ought to be stopped. The main difference between the Amendment and the Motion is that the hon. Member for Huddersfield seeks to extend the operation of this anti-profiteering machinery from war conditions to such conditions as we may have in peace-time, when we are engaged in repairing the deficiencies in our armaments. From that point of view it appears to me that the Amendment of my hon. Friend is of a more far-reaching description than the Motion.
The hon. Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. Mainwaring), who introduced this Motion, will forgive me if I do not enter into a contest on the question of Socialist theory. I prefer his Motion to the arguments which he used in support of it, and as to the Motion itself, it is very difficult for anyone to quarrel seriously with it. The speech which the hon. Member delivered in support of it made use of that device which is fre-


quently used by hon. Members opposite, of conveniently dividing mankind into sheep and goats. That is a device which makes it very easy to discuss topics in a convincing manner. If the hon. Member will abandon with me that contest to-night I hope he will find we are not so very far apart. I propose to abandon that contest because I am sure the hon. Member would not expect me to answer this Debate on the assumption that the war which the Motion envisages will coincide with the triumph of Socialism in this country. In other words, if we have to think of a war at all it will not coincide with Socialism.
We have to think of the present system. There are two entirely different problems. The one is what the State has to do in time of war and the other what is to be done in time of peace. I do not quarrel with hon. Members for drawing attention to the possibility of war. Much as every party in this House detests the idea, of such a catastrophe again overtaking the world, it is the duty of every Government, no matter what its complexion may be—it would be the duty of hon. Members opposite if they were in our place—to have in view measures which it can take to mitigate the rigours of that dreadful possibility, and I myself do not in the least associate the fact that hon. Members opposite have moved this Motion with any acceptance by them, or by us, of the theory that war is inevitable and must come.
The Motion deals with profiteering in time of war. Profiteering is only a part of the problem which faces every Government in that dreadful emergency, and if a war did take place—which God forbid—we should find it necessary to mobilise all the resources of the country so as to ensure that there was the adequate production of all that was required for the war. Not only would the Government have to do its best to secure the adequate production of war material, but it would have to intervene to prevent the needs of the civilian population and the requirements in the way of food and transport being dislocated by the sudden demands of war. It is obvious that this duty could not be discharged without the assumption by the Government of the day of wide powers of control, and the House will agree that the time to devise such measures is not when the war has broken

out but when we have time to look about us coolly and calmly.
Profiteering is one of the things to be looked at. It is clearly a monstrous thing that any section of the community, as the Motion puts it, should seek to exploit the situation of she nation to its own sectional advantage. Profiteering is an evil in the body politic which is both material and spiritual. It is a material evil in time of war because if the situation is exploited in such a way that too much of the nation's resources is going in this particular direction, it means that the effort of the nation is not as economical and as formidable as it would be if those resources were not being wasted. It is also what I have ventured to term a spiritual evil in the body politic, because a great deal of the nation's strength in the hour of danger depends upon the solidarity of its people. No nation can contemplate profiteering without seeing how it tends to divide people. It fills those who are called upon for heavy sacrifices of life, of wealth, of industry or of leisure, with feelings which tend to destroy that solidarity which is essential if we are to have the nation functioning properly.
Of course, this Motion is largely prompted, as the Debate has shown, by stories of the accumulation of vast and unjust profits during the last War, and the fear is, as I understand it, that the last War happened so long ago that we have forgotten the lessons of control in the economic sphere which it taught us, and that if another war should supervene we should be found in the same position as we were in 1914. I can assure the House that nothing of the kind is the case. In 1914 this country had no experience of the problems that are involved in war on the modern scale. We had a small force and cur equipment of arsenals and factories for supplies for that force were on a correspondingly small scale. No one had any idea of the vast expansion of production that would become necessary; and, naturally, when control was established in this and that direction it was control of a fragmentary, piece-meal, hesitating aid often experimental character. Very often, too, that control, starting as it did with a complete absence of experience, was applied too late, and when the evil which it was sought to mitigate had already attained such proportions as to be out of hand.
I can assure the House that in this respect we have had our lesson and have profited by it. Immediately the War was over it was recognised that this dearly-bought experience should not be suffered to perish through the mere passing away of those who had been concerned in administration during that War. The problems involved, particularly in the key industries, in regard to profiteering, have been actively under consideration by various Departments of the State for years.

Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: What do they propose to do? Tell us what they are going to do.

Mr. MORRISON: The Government's plan covers the whole field, including this important matter of profiteering and the control necessary to enable the Government to use the industry and the commerce of this nation for this purpose. Such plans have been worked out, but I do not represent them as that sort of mysterious, cold schedule which we are often told exists and in which everything is worked out to the last minute. Plans of this kind must never be static. I assure the House that these plans are constantly under review and brought up to date.

Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: Let us hear them.

Mr. MORRISON: Hon. Members ask me for information as to the plans themselves. I am sure that the House will not expect me at this hour—

Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: May I interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman7 He made reference to plans touching the manufacture of war material. Are the Government going to take control of credit?

Mr. MORRISON: I can assure the hon. Member that the plans are no mere matters of one problem; they envisage all the problems, including financial ones as well, although hon. Members must not be surprised if they do not find in them their own pet nostrums. From the magnitude of the problem it follows that the plan touches many operations and that many experts must give their particular contribution to the solution of the problem. The position is this: If

ever the dreadful emergency arose, the Government would come to the House of Commons and ask for power to put into operation a system of control to ensure that the most economical use was made of the nation's resources in order that the evil against which this Motion is directed might not arise.
So much for the war that is envisaged; but let us remember that we are still at peace. I hope that we shall long remain so. It is in this time that the second part of this Amendment would arise, in regard to steps being taken to repair the deficiencies in our defences. That is peace-time activity, and is quite different from the kind of governmental control which becomes necessary in time of war. It is activity undertaken in the hope that it will help peace to endure until the world reaches a calmer time. In that spirit we should approach the second problem comprehended in the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield. It is a very different problem from the problem of war. For one thing, the quantities of production involved are immensely smaller than the demands of war upon the nation. The programme in the White Paper about which hon. Members make criticisms from time to time is a very small affair, raising none of the problems of war time. The production for this programme is being undertaken by an industry which has not been conducted for war purposes, but is still in the main engaged in manufactures for peace. We hope that it will remain so, but the programme is one which is to be superimposed on an industry, busily engaged in the operations of peace, to make it an industry engaged in the business of war.
The Government's policy in this matter is that the programme for repairing our defences should not interfere with the peace-time activities of our industry, as far as that can be avoided. That makes the problem of preventing excess profits a very different one from what it is in times of war. In times of peace, the normal safeguard relied upon by the Government is competitive tender, but to-day, when this programme is being superimposed upon an already busy industry, we find that competitive tender cannot invariably be relied upon to check abnormal profits. It is, however, by no means a factor that has entirely dis-


appeared; in many cases competitive tender is still open to us as a check upon excess profits. But the Government have always recognised the fact that competitive tender can no longer serve as the only safeguard to prevent undue profits. The system which exists to-day for that purpose is no immediately extemporised thing; it has been worked by the Treasury and the Defence Departments since last May. It is a system by which the Defence Departments concerned have a special form of contract procedure involving access to the contractors' books, and our technical officers can not only check the actual profits made, but, where necessary, can give technical advice which will enable costs to be reduced. Hon. Members who may cherish the delusion that manufacturers can keep duplicate books for the purposes of the Government's inspection should at least not cherish the equal delusion that the officials of the Government are so easily deceived as they might imagine.
The question arises, what is a reasonable profit, and what is not? That problem cannot be solved in any cut-and-dried, rule-of-thumb manner. I am informed that one of the mistakes made in the Ministry of Munitions was to work out a sort of profit-on-turnover basis, so that, if an industry were making a profit of, say, 5 per cent., it was assumed that it might perfectly fairly be allowed to go on making a profit of 5 per cent. Any such short-cut leads to the most indefensible results, because it is a commonplace that, when you have a vastly increased production of goods, you expect the percentage profit on the turnover to be very much less, while the industry is still adequately remunerated. In other words, these economies of large-scale production should be as far as possible secured to the nation. There are, however, difficulties. It is not possible to lay down a definite rule, but I may say that there is a very strong advisory committee assisting the Air Force in the matter of contracts and profit-adjusting, under the chairmanship of Sir Hardman Lever, and the success of that committee will probably lead to the adoption of a similar procedure, using the best technical advice that we can, to assist us in the case of the other Services. But that is a mere suggestion.
It is necessary for the Government to secure a willing industry to work with them. We do not take the view of human nature that hon. Members opposite take. We believe that industry will play the game with us, and when I say industry I mean all concerned in industry. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the game that they will play?"] The game that one expects a British subject to play when it is a question of national emergency. We believe that we shall get a willing industry to assist the nation. That does not mean that we should merely rely on assurances given to us. If we were forced to fight a war, undoubtedly control of a very pronounced character would be necessary in the public interest in order to prevent not only profiteering but the breakdown of supplies. In those circumstances, of course, the Government would have to come to the House to ask for powers. In the meantime the Government of the day, if that dreadful day dawns, will be in possession of a scheme worked out which will enable them to exercise the duties of the Government in those dreadful circumstances. But, with regard to peace, we do not think it necessary to take any of those wide powers in order to make certain that the armament programme is carried out without undue cost.
The present method of costings will be a sufficient help to us and a sufficient safeguard of the public. The hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scrymgeour-Wedderburn) indicated that perhaps the financial requirements of this programme of improved defence might have unfortunate repercussions upon the money market and upset the policy of free money which has been such a marked contributor to the nation's recovery. That is not so. As far as we can see at present, there is no reason to suppose that the demands of this programme will in any way interfere with the continuance of abundant cheap credit. I am prepared to accept either the Motion or the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Resolved,
That, in the event of an outbreak of war, this House is of opinion that His Majesty's Government should be immediately invested with whatever powers may be necessary to ensure that the national need shall not be exploited by private interests and profit mongers.

DISTURBANCES, KENSINGTON.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Captain Margesson]

10.35 p.m.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: In the time that remains, I want to raise a subject which was referred to at some length at Question Time to-day. A number of questions were on the Order Paper with regard to the action of the Metropolitan Police in dispersing a meeting that was held on Thurloe Square last Sunday evening. The Secretary of State for the Home Department gave a long reply as to the reasons which led to that action. The House knows that on Sunday evening there was a Fascist demonstration in the Albert Hall, and that a number of persons intended to hold counter demonstrations, and we have been informed today by the Home Secretary that the Commissioner of Police had issued a direction that no counter-meeting should be held within a radius of half-a-mile of the Albert Hall. I am not in any way criticising that particular direction, but I would point out that the place where this meeting, with which I am now concerned, was held is about half-a-mile as the crow flies from the Albert Hall, and considerably more, if one had to go the normal way along the street.
I do not suggest in the case of this particular meeting that there was the slightest danger of a clash taking place between those who were demonstrating on behalf of the Fascist cause in the Albert Hall and those who wished to demonstrate against it outside. This meeting began about 8 o'clock and was allowed to continue for about 50 minutes. At 8.50 or thereabouts a number of police arrived on the scene—20 of them, as we were told to-day, mounted, and the others on foot—and proceed forcibly to disperse this meeting, using truncheons and staves for the purpose. I want to make my position clear to the House. I do not dispute for a moment that, if people hold a public meeting on the highway and if they cause an obstruction in so doing, the police are entitled to request them to move on, and, if they fail to comply, the police are then entitled—nobody disputes that, I think—to use such force as may be necessary to compel them to move. My information is—and the Home Secre-

tary perhaps will be able to correct me if I am wrong—that no such request was made to those who were in charge of the meeting. I cannot, of course, say what was said to individuals on the outskirts of the crowd, but there were speakers who were addressing the meeting from a lorry, and I am told that no request or message was sent to them that they should disperse their meeting, or that they should move on to a different place.
Surely, it would have been better if, before taking action of this kind, which, I think, everyone will agree, was strong action, the police should at least have made some sort of request of that nature to the people who were responsible for the crowd being there. As the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary knows, there have been quoted a large number of statements from persons who were present at the meeting, and who witnessed what occurred, or at any rate some part of what occurred. Last night I handed to the right hon. Gentleman a number of statements which were taken from eyewitnesses. I have since received a number of further statements, which I will hand to him if he wishes to see them after this Debate, and also to-day a number of hon. Members in this House have received letters from persons who were present on the occasion, and who have written to them quite independently in order to protest against the action of the police.
It is correct to say that all the people who have made statements in one form or another are unanimous upon three points. First, they say that the meeting was orderly. I do not deny that at a meeting of that character there must have been a certain amount of noise, but it is clear that the speakers, who were without any mechanical aid, were perfectly audible at a considerable distance from the platform, and the meeting could not have been of a disorderly character. There is also no dispute that the police did charge into this crowd using their staves and batons, and, thirdly, that they used their batons in a manner which was certainly not justified by the circumstances. I do not want to weary the House with long quotations, but in order to show the sort of statement that is being made I will read one or two sentences from some of the statements which


have been supplied to the right hon. Gentleman. In his statement Mr. Harding says:
I became aware of a great excitement in Albert Place, and at about 8.50 mounted police came along Albert Place, charged the meeting with batons, striking right and left.
Another quotation reads:
At ten minutes to nine mounted police came in force and charged the meeting with batons injuring several people and scattering everyone.
Another:
It appeared to me that the manoeuvres were made as provocative as possible and in breaking up the meeting the police, especially the mounted police, used their staves and truncheons indiscriminately.
A further quotation reads:
A few minutes later, at 8.50 p.m., without any warning that we were able to hear, about 15 or more mounted police charged straight into the crowd striking right and left with their batons.
Another one says:
Shouts from the outside of the crowd grew in volume and mounted police cut right through the middle of the crowd at considerable pace, hitting people right and left with their batons.
Those are specimens from a large number of statements which have been taken from people who were actually present at the meeting. The right hon. Gentleman at Question Time gave an account of what had taken place which is presumably an account supplied him by the police authorities. The answer will be fresh within the recollection of hon. Members, and it is clear that there is here a conflict of evidence. I am not attempting to disparage the information which has been passed on to the right hon. Gentleman, but at any rate here you have a large number of persons, about 30 or 40, who were present and they are making very grave allegations about the conduct of the police. If it were only a matter of two or three disgruntled persons I agree that it might safely be ignored, but here we have a large number of persons who are unanimous upon the essential points. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman will suggest that all these people are saying what they know to be untrue. I do not think anybody in this House would suggest that there is no basis of truth in any of these statements that have been made.
Now, if only half of the facts in these statements are true, I submit to the House that there is ample justification for holding an inquiry into what took place last Sunday night. I am trying not to put the case too high and not to pre-judge this issue in any way. I certainly have not attempted to make a general attack upon the police as a force, and I would like to say that we all appreciate the difficulties which they encounter on such occasions as last Sunday night. There may be, and I hope there is, a perfectly good answer to all these charges that have been made, but at any rate they are serious charges and they are supported by a very large number of eyewitnesses. Surely in justice to the public and in justice to the police themselves a full and impartial inquiry ought to he held.
May I say one word about my own position in this matter? I have no particular sympathy with the people who were engaging in this demonstration. As it happens, they invited me some days before to take part in this anti-Fascist demonstration. I refused to do so, because I took the view that it was unnecessary to hold counter-demonstrations on the same evening and because I also took the view that it was not worth while to give the Blackshirt movement an advertisement which it could not obtain in any other way. That is my personal view, and I have not altered it in any way. I am not concerned in the least with the politics or the views of those who organised this demonstration in Thurlowe Square. We are only concerned here with the conduct of the police, and I submit to the House and the Home Secretary that at any rate there is here a matter for inquiry.

10.47 p.m.

Captain HOPE: I hope I may be allowed to intervene for a few moments, not as a member of the Government, but as an eye witness of the scenes on Sunday night and as an unwilling participant in those scenes. On Sunday evening I went in my motor-car to dine with my mother, who lives at the corner of Alfred Place and Thurloe Square. I arrived at ten minutes to eight, and left my car unattended outside the front door. About 20 minutes later, I heard sounds of song and a certain amount of shouting outside. The song, as I afterwards ascertained, was the "Internationale" I


went outside, partly out of curiosity and partly to see whether anything was likely to happen to my car. On arriving outside, I found the crowd, which I estimated at betwen 500 and 600, assembling at the corner of Alfred Place and Thurloe Square. Shortly afterwards a motor-car came up, and to my surprise a gentleman got on to the fly-board and proceeded to address the crowd. My surprise was still greater when I saw that the gentleman concerned was Mr. John Strachey, who I last met as a political opponent in the 1931 election. On the last occasion I had actually seen him he was moaning at the loss of his deposit. I listened to him for a certain time and also stood by my car.
At that time the crowd seemed quite peaceful and was listening to the oratory of Mr. Strachey. I heard some of his remarks, which were not particularly important, except that he accused the police of favouring the Fascists rather than his own organisation, and there was a good deal about downtrodden workers and so on, which one rather expected. After a time, when I was standing by my car, several people very kindly said to me, "Don't worry about your car, it will be all right." So I went back inside the house. After five or 10 minutes I saw 20 or 30 members of the crowd come to my car and push it backwards about 25 yards, down Alfred Place, and put it across the road as a barrier, at which I naturally ran out of the house and tried to rescue my car. I reasoned with them, I hope persuasively, and finally was allowed to turn my car round and drive it in the direction of Kensington Station. When I got to my car the people round it were by no means friendly and had unscrewed the cap of the petrol tank. One man I heard say, "Give us a match and I will set the — thing alight." Another man said, "Give us a knife and we will slash the car."
From that moment I did not look upon the meeting as a particularly friendly one, or as one particularly anxious to preserve the peace. Having seen my car put in a place of safety I came back to the house, by which time the crowd had grown very much and was much more aggressive. I was unable to enter my father's house because the crowd were all round the door and I could not get in. Finally, I got in by climbing the area railings and entering by the area door.

The crowd were much more impassioned than when I had left. Their numbers had been added to considerably, and they were stirred up either by Mr. Strachey's oratory or the stimulation of the numbers who had joined them, and they were by that time in an ugly mood. Some 50 to 100 people had climbed the railings in Thurloe Square and were in the gardens for safety or for anything else. I watched the proceedings carefully, because I wanted to see what was going on. The yelling and the shouting had become much worse. The crowd were forming a cordon across Alfred Place and were threatening the police to "come on." After about five minutes mounted and foot police came up Alfred Place and dispersed the crowd.
I do not agree with what my hon. Friend said, that the police charged the crowd, hitting people right and left. They did not charge up the street. They came at a slow pace and waved their truncheons in the air. I do not pretend to have seen everything, but personally I saw only two people struck. One was a man who flashed a flashlight directly into a horse's face, and the policeman struck the flashlight out of his hand; and the other was a man who aimed a blow at a foot policeman and the policeman gave him an upper cut. I saw nobody struck to the ground. As far as I could see there were few casualties of any sort.
When I went to rescue my car I said to the people, "Why do you want to put a barrier across the road?" and they said, "Because the police will be after us, and will move us off "They knew then that they should not have met at that place, and they were perfectly prepared to be moved on by the police. They had from 50 minutes to an hour in which to hold their meeting, and the police were justified in moving them on when they did so. The crowd was growing ugly and was growing bigger, and was undoubtedly causing great disturbance in the neighbourhood. When the police did move them on, they scattered down the Brompton Road or down towards the Fulham Road. I gave the police inspector a report of what I had actually seen. I do not consider that the police used undue violence and I do not believe that anyone was seriously hurt. Owing to the great crowd, in a comparatively narrow street, certain people were slightly crushed against the railings, but


I never saw anyone being carried away injured, anyone lying on the ground, or any person with a bleeding head. I do not consider that the police in any way exceeded their duty. I only intervene because I am probably the only Member of the House who saw what happened, and I have merely stated the facts as I saw them. I believe the police were justified in moving on the crowd, and that the crowd expected to be moved on, and they moved on quickly and dispersed in a peaceful manner.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. PRITT: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot), and I also am particularly anxious not in any way to prejudge the situation but merely to appeal to the Home Secretary for an inquiry of the widest possible character, an inquiry which, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, the police need not fear if their version is right. The natural observation that one cannot order inquiries here, there and everywhere, even if the police do feel that they have nothing to fear, should, in this case, I think, be met by the volume of evidence already available against the police. I do not say a word about its quality. As I say, I do not want to prejudge anything but I have 28 statements in my hand, I have received eight or ten at my chambers, and I expect when I return there I shall find another dozen or so. Similar statements are being sent to other hon. Members and are pouring into the newspaper offices. They come from people who are my constituents and people who are not. They come from people who are politicians and people who are not. They come from people who write excitedly and people who write soberly; from professional people, middle-class people and working-class people. In essence, they all make the same allegations.
I was interested to hear what was said by the hon. and gallant Member who had the advantage of seeing a great deal of what occurred. I do not for a moment suggest that he told the House anything he did not see, but when half a dozen people at the edge of a crowd say one thing it does not mean that the whole of the crowd think that way. I suggest that the proper course for the police, if they wanted to clear away the crowd, was to see the people on the lorry, in charge of

it, and say to them, "Will you please help to disperse this meeting by taking yourself and your lorry away."

Captain HOPE: It would have been quite impossible for the police to get through the crowd to the lorry which was jammed up at Thurloe Place.

Mr. PRITT: My experience of the police leads me to believe that they are sufficiently capable of doing that which is part of their duty, namely, to make their way through a crowd. If 20 mounted police could get through a crowd, one plain clothes policeman could get through more easily. But I do not want to prejudge the case. The hon. Member saw no people with bleeding heads. I have 10 or 15 statements of other people who saw people with bleeding heads. I know the hon. Member is telling the truth, and I assume that 25 per cent. of the others are telling the truth, and, of course, both statements are quite consistent. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman—

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Mr. PRITT: I hope I am not saying anything unduly controversial if I make this additional ground of appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. I know that from the industrial districts in the North and in the South-West, and from London and many areas, and from many classes of people, there is growing up in this country a growing distrust, a growing fear, and a growing hatred of many police forces—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—I was interested to observe earlier in the afternoon that one thing that seemed to excite hon. Members opposite was the desire of hon. Members on this side to know the name of a police officer against whom many allegations, whether true or false, have been made, as if hon. Members opposite feared that if his name were known, something dreadful would come out. It is a very tragic fact that the hatred of the police in this country is growing in many districts. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if these police are wrong, it is his elementary duty to hold an inquiry. If they are right, it will save many broken heads if the public


can be convinced that some of their hatred of the police is wrong. I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to prejudge anything, and I hold myself from prejudging anything, but I ask for an inquiry.

11.2 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) for providing me with the material which he had in his hand, I think, last night, and I need hardly say that I have studied it carefully, in order that it might help me to reach the conclusion which I will state to the House. He has made one or two observations about the statements, and I must make one or two more. I quite accept that he puts these statements forward with every belief in their genuineness, and I accept them as genuine in the sense that I have no reason to challenge what may be the view of those who have reported what is here stated. But when I read the statements, I am bound to say that they do not impress me, now that I know what I do know about the facts, as much as they seem to have impressed my hon. Friend; and I will tell him why.
I find, as indeed has just been said by the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt), that they all make the same allegation, which I think was the language of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The allegation in substance is this, that this was a completely peaceable meeting, that it was a perfectly orderly crowd, that everything was perfectly quiet and orderly, and so on, again and again. Well, whatever may be the truth—and truth is many-sided—that is manifestly not an accurate account of the facts. We have heard my hon. Friend here explaining that as a matter of fact his own car was appropriated by a portion of this crowd in order to help to make a barrier in Alfred Place. Well, just listen to the way in which that is described by one of the hon. Member's witnesses. This is what he says:
The meeting was perfectly orderly and attentive, and a cordon of people formed across Alfred Place to keep order.
A number of people who had no right to be there were forming a cordon across Alfred Place to keep order. They were forming it with my hon. Friend's motor car. They were forming it to prevent

the police from approaching the meeting. It is obvious to anyone who has studied the reports that to describe this as a quiet Sunday evening crowd is merely to make statements that are contrary to the facts.
I take a second example. I told the House at Question Time of a serious case that has come before the magistrate—

Mr. PRITT: I did not mention that case because I thought it was the subject of appeal. I could have said a good deal about it.

Sir J. SIMON: I do not know whether I ought to congratulate myself on my hon. and learned Friend's reticence or not. I thank my stars for my good fortune. I am only going to make this observation, for let us preserve our judicial pose. What I read in the statement of one of these witnesses is this:
The second incident was the arrest of this young man"—
and my hon. Friend offers this as some testimony of the bad behaviour of the police and the virtue of the crowd—
who had attempted to help a friend who was being wrongfully arrested.
Now I know how it should be described quite impartially. If the police have got somebody in their custody and they are engaged in taking the person in custody to the station, and if somebody else comes and tries to deliver that person from custody, the right way to describe it is to say, "This young man was attempting to help a friend who was being wrong fully arrested." Subject to what may be ascertained on appeal, that is a case in which a policeman was unfortunately kicked in the most horrible manner.

Mr. FOOT: This passage refers to a much later incident at 10.45.

Sir J. SIMON: Then there must have been at least two cases in this crowd in which peaceful and orderly persons were attempting to rescue friends who were being wrongfully arrested. I can only say that, having tested the details with some care, my own view is that it refers to the same case. It is perfectly plain to anybody who studies the material which I have had that there was, in fact, a very dangerous situation and a vast accumulation of people, many of whom were certainly not behaving well. It is quite obvious that there were a very large number of people in this place who


were not behaving well and quietly and who were composing part of a dangerous crowd.
My hon. Friends opposite spoke as though they were the only recipients of letters. Do they suppose that nobody has written to Scotland Yard or the Home Office on this subject? I have letters from people who say that the accusations that the police were behaving improperly were, as far as they could see, wholly without foundation, and they give detailed chapter and verse for incident after incident to show what happened.

Mr. COCKS: Why not have an inquiry then?

Sir J. SIMON: Let me call a witness whom, I have no doubt, my hon. Friend who interrupted me will accept as one of great accuracy and veracity. I have a copy of the "Daily Worker" published on Monday and containing some stop press information as to what was going on according to the veracious and responsible journalists who work for that newspaper. Let me just read the stop press notes in the "Daily Worker":
8.5 p.m. The temper of the crowd is rising, indicated by the fact that one car believed to contain a blackshirt was nearly turned until it was found that the man was wearing a dark blue shirt.
Then it gives an account of the mounted police attempting to drive back a crowd of 300, which I take to be a misprint for 3,000. It says that the police going down Exhibition Road met with much difficulty owing to the fact that the horses had to walk in and out of traffic. Then it goes on:
8.15 Three mounted police made a charge outside South Kensington Station and made an arrest. The crowd went for them.
That is my witness—the "Daily Worker." When I recollect that one of the signatories to Mr. John Strachey's circular inviting people to come to this meeting was my hon. Friend opposite, I think he will realise that the account of the "Daily Worker" was pretty accurate.

Mr. GALLACHER: I would like to put a correct construction on what is meant by the document and by the ac-

count in the "Daily Worker." The right hon. Gentleman is putting an entirely false construction upon it.

Sir J. SIMON: I shall certainly not speak until 11.30 p.m., and so the hon. Gentleman may have the opportunity he desires.
There is another feature common to the whole of these statements. There is not a single one of them from beginning to end which does not treat this vast meeting in Thurloe Square as though it was a meeting which had been called there and was being held and addressed by those responsible in the ordinary way, without any notice that it was, in fact, quite contrary to the lawful orders given by the police. There is not a witness here who appears even to have appreciated how different the facts were. The true facts were that Mr. Strachey, who seems to have been the principal spokesman, had received in good time a perfectly plain and courteous letter from the police authorities informing him that the Commissioner had given instructions that no meeting should be held that evening within a certain distance of the Albert Hall. [Interruption.] Is there any objection to that?

Mr. PRITT: Only that this meeting was more than half a mile from the Albert Hall.

Sir J. SIMON: No, it was not. They knew perfectly well that if they thought the instructions of the Commissioner were unlawful, they had an opportunity of getting the best advice. They would have been entitled to challenge anything which they thought to be unlawful. But they did not communicate with the police or with the Home Office, and then when the time came, they did their utmost to collect this enormous crowd, at 7 p.m. outside the Albert Hall and at 8.30 in Exhibition Road. I wonder whether my hon. Friend who has presented this matter has ascertained from Mr. Strachey why he thought it desirable to assemble in thousands in that manner. I have a theory, which I will advance with all due regard to the necessity of preserving a judicial and impartial attitude. My belief is that the people who did this, did it, not because there are riot many places where they could hold meetings and demonstrate to their heart's content and


not because there are not many places where they have held meetings without the slightest attempt at interference, but because they knew there was to be a Fascist demonstration in the Albert Hall. If, in such a case, you collect as many opponents of that creed as you can outside the Albert Hall before the meeting begins and as the people are going in and if, again, you collect them, an hour and a half later, in Exhibition Road when the meeting is beginning to break up, what do you think you are going to produce? Conviction, truth—or riot? No sensible citizen can have any doubt that if, against the lawful orders of the police, you go into a prohibited area and hold this kind of meeting in order that you may demonstrate against opinions which many of us abhor, you are taking a. very dangerous course, and I am not in the least surprised to hear from my hon. Friend that, although he was invited to take part in this meeting, for very good reasons he refused to do so.
So far from agreeing that in this matter the police deserve to be rebuked, so far from sharing the view of the hon. and learned Gentleman that there exists a widespread hatred of the police, I think I am better justified in claiming that, broadly speaking, the people of this country have a very considerable respect for the police and considerable sympathy with their difficulties, and are very slow to believe that men whom they know from their contact with them from time to time suddenly turned into cruel devils—because certain persons say that this was an entirely peaceful gathering, that nobody ever did anything in the least likely to provoke a breach of the peace—and yet suddenly there burst in upon them these minions of the law.
If there was any solid reason for believing anything of the kind it would not be necessary for the hon. and learned Gentleman to ask for an inquiry. I should be the very first to insist upon one. As things are, how does the matter really stand? The Commissioner of Police is always prepared, and it is his duty to do so, to examine any complaint which is made and supported by evidence against any policeman. Also, the law courts are open. This is not a country where, as in sonic countries, you cannot challenge what a policeman does. Any member of the public may take proceedings in either the civil or criminal courts against a

policeman if he is prepared to prove by evidence that the policeman has committed an assault or exceeded his duty, but there is not a person in the whole of this array, so far as I know, who is prepared to do it. Let them do it if they have a case. If, on the other hand, they are doubtful, let them communicate with the Commissioner, and they may be sure that investigation will be made. For my part, having investigated this matter, without the slightest desire to be other than impartial, I can see no justification at all for saying that in these circumstances there should be what is called an inquiry of the widest possible character. I think the conclusion which will be drawn by most hon. Members present is that this was a perfectly gratuitous difficulty which was presented to the Metropolitan Police, and it was deliberately designed to present this difficulty without rhyme or reason, that the people who did it knew that they were breaking the law in doing it, and that those who are really responsible are those who gathered this crowd together. An hon. Member says that notice should have been given to invite the speakers to desist from the meeting or draw off the crowd. I have already pointed out that the crowd was barricading the entrance to Thurloe Square. It is quite clear that the crowd was attempting to keep the police from getting into the place. I have seen the principal officers concerned since I answered the questions in the House and they tell me that, when the mounted police first approached, a man who appeared to be in authority came forward and saw them. He was asked to give up the meeting and withdraw. They saw this man return, I do not say to the platform; but certainly he returned. They heard the crowd shouting, "No, no." The police then waited 10 minutes before any action was taken.
I hope I have explained to the House how this matter appears to stand. I am sorry I cannot accept this request, but I see no ground for it at all. I will now keep the promise that I made to my hon. Friend, who desires to explain that I have not correctly read what I thought I saw printed in the "Daily Worker."

11.22 p.m.

Mr. GALLACHER: The first thing to which to draw attention is the statement that I participated in calling and organising a demonstration of about 100,000


strong, and that there was no trouble of any kind. I took part in organising a demonstration on the occasion of the previous meeting held by the Fascists at the Albert Hall. It was timed to meet outside the Albert Hall one hour before the meeting started, and then to proceed to a suitable place and call a demonstration of an anti-Fascist character. We gathered outside the Albert Hall. There were thousands of us. We demonstrated there against the Fascists for reasons which I can give. We marched away, from there. We held a demonstration, and there was no trouble of any kind. The Home Secretary must be aware of that. He has deliberately tried to mislead this House and to play up to their prejudices by saying that the calling of this demonstration was for the purpose of making trouble. None of the demonstrators went there with any weapon of any kind, or with any intention of doing anything other than demonstrating. When the police took a man, a certain individual who tried to help was arrested, but that does not mean that he obstructed the police in the sense that he tried to take the prisoner out of their hands.

Sir J. SIMON: What did he do?

Mr. GALLACHER: One friend of mine, a young man, was arrested. I am not sure whether this is the case referred to by the right hon. Gentleman or not, but that is actually a case which is before the magistrate. When the young man was arrested, he said to the police, "That young man has done nothing, and you have no right to arrest him. He has been along with me all the time." He tried to help him, and he also got arrested. He is a Parliamentary candidate and a very responsible young fellow, and he tells me and tells the House that he never made any attempt of any kind to interfere with the police in the sense of trying to take the prisoner out of their hands. I am certain that there is no charge against him of trying to do so.

Sir J. SIMON: Let me say this at once; I do not wish to make, even by accident, a mistaken statement. If the hon. Gentleman tells me that the case to which I have referred, in the statement I have read, is a case of that character, and he knows it, I shall of course accept

it as information; but there were cases of attempts to rescue people from the police, without any doubt whatever.

Mr. GALLACHER: I have said that I am not sure whether the case the right hon. Gentleman has read is the case that has come before my personal notice, but it is the case of a well-known member of the Labour party who tried to help his friend, but not in the sense of interfering with the police. When the "Daily Herald" writes abort the crowd going for the police when the police made an attack, does the right hon. Gentleman mean to suggest that that means that the crowd, with bare hands and no weapons, and unorganised in the sense of not being under any particular command, made a physical attack on the police? No; it means that the crowd were shouting against the action of the police. I have been in thousands of demonstrations, and this argument has been used that the crowd went for the police, but all it meant was that they were shouting.
With regard to the calling of the demonstration, you had last night in this House the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) dealing in the most impassioned manner with the bestial attack on Jews in Germany, but when you have the most vicious and deliberate incitement to the same bestiality in this country, and are making a demonstration to prevent it from growing, all the forces of the police are used to protect that bestial demonstration. People talk about freedom of speech and public meeting. Will the right hon. Gentleman, who has an acute legal mind, take note of this? This organisation against which we are entitled to demonstrate, in its public meeting, so called, dispensed with that usual safeguard of public meetings, a chairman, and put in his place organised gangs specially prepared for violently suppressing any kind of opposition. If the right hon. Gentleman or the Government were to propose that to remove Mr. Speaker and replace him with a gang of hooligans who would suppress every attempt at opposition, would the people of this country have a right to demonstrate against that? If the people have that right, have we. not a right to demonstrate, not to break the law, not to take any violent action, but to demonstrate with all ou organised might against the growth of such a menace to


the right of public meeting as that? That is why we called the demonstration. It was not to make a riot. There would have been no trouble if the mounted police had not charged into the crowd. There was no justification for that. The cordon formed in Alfred Place was to protect the rear of the crowd.

Sir J. SIMON: From what?

Mr. GALLACHER: From any attack. We have had much experience and an effort must be made to protect the rear of the crowd. I have been speaking at a meeting when suddenly a terrific attack

has been made on the rear of the crowd. I have seen men and women lying around me. I saw a woman lying on the ground with a boot mark on her face on a muddy day. I myself was soaked with blood and was arrested soaked with blood and then got a term of imprisonment for assaulting the police. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to make inquiry into the matter. We shall be satisfied if it goes in favour of the police.

It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.